Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #133883
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years |
| Date | 2025-10-27 04:32 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10dmsk4$hb72$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <10dj2qp$3gom0$1@dont-email.me> <10dj5ps$3hbgk$1@dont-email.me> <10dm6me$ajpt$1@dont-email.me> <20251026172015.881@kylheku.com> |
On 27/10/2025 00:44, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-10-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/25/2025 1:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 10/25/25 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Think this all the way through do not make any guesses.
>>>> The answer must come from DD simulated by HHH
>>>> according to the semantics of the C programming language
>>>> and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly
>>>> simulates its input until:
>>>>
>>>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:
>>>> abort simulation and return 0.
>>>>
>>>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated
>>>> "return" statement: return 1.
>>>>
>>>> (c) If it is impossible to match (a) or (b)
>>>> then (c) is matched
>>>>
>>>> (a)(b)(c) are in strict priority order (a)-->(b)-->(c)
>>>>
>>>> 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);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer applied to
>>>> the HP counter-example input
>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCSTA-3.pdf
>>>>
>>>
>>> i'm pretty sure quite a few of the trolls here get what ur trying to
>>> suggest. they just don't accept it a resolution to /effectively
>>> computing/ whether an input machine halts/not ...
>>>
>>
>> I am not merely suggesting anything. I am
>> specifying a straight forward sequence of
>> steps that any C programmer can easily determine:
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return Halt_Status;
>> }
>
> I have shown with code and execution traces from x86utm_exe that
> in the following:
>
> void DDD()
> {
> HHH(DDD);
> return;
> }
>
> the DDD simulation started by HHH is halting, even though
> this outputs 'Input_Halts = 0":
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", HHH(DD));
> }
>
> I.e. not only is the directly called DDD() halting, but so is the
> simulated one. This means that HHH has come to the wrong conclusion
> about its own simulation, returning 0, leaving behind an unfinished
> simulation on which a finite number of DebugStep calls reach the
> RET instruction.
>
> Before main() reaches the "Input_Halts" output, two DDD simulations are
> observed as starting up. HHH thinks that the execution events from these
> simulations are a single instruction stream, and so it wrongly comes to
> the conclusion that there is a loop.
>
> Note that the above DDD //is not even a diagonal test case//.
>
> DDD is not reacting to the return value of HHH at all; it
> unconditionally exits.
>
> HHH could return 1 and DDD would still terminate, which means 1 would
> be correct.
>
> THIS CASE IS REPARABLE: you have no excuse for HHH not being able
> to decide the above non-diagonal DDD as halting, returning 1.
Hmm, ok, so the logic of HHH is:
1, Monitor simulation for Pattern1 [aka PO's unsound infinite recursion
pattern]
2. If it matches, decide neverhalts
3. Else if simulation halts, decide halts
4. [else never return]
How might PO repair that logic? The obvious answer is to delete the Pattern1 test. Then HHH_new
will simulate DDD to completion and see it halt.
Well done, but that doesn't help PO in the slightest, because now HHH_new(DDD_new) will never halt.
I suppose that's an improvement on deciding incorrectly, but PO won't want to waste time on it.
(Or should the fix be some new Pattern2 which detects /halting/ behaviour? That wouldn't help PO
either. Of course, nothing will help PO, because he is Wrong Wrong Wrong at every level.)
>
> I have shown that your logic isn't wrong because it is attacked
> by the halting proof trick; independently of that your detection
> conditions are a bogus fuckery.
>
> Instead of getting to work on a bugfix for your broken crap, you are
> spending hours talking to ChatGPT and presenting ten line bullshits that
> "any C programmer should understand".
>
> Evidence:
>
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> [0000219f][00103820][00000000] 83c404 add esp,+04
> [000021a2][0010381c][00000000] 50 push eax
> [000021a3][00103818][00000743] 6843070000 push 00000743
> [000021a8][00103818][00000743] e8b5e5ffff call 00000762
> Input_Halts = 0
> [000021ad][00103820][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> [000021b0][00103820][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> [000021b2][00103824][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> [000021b3][00103828][00000000] c3 ret
> Number of Instructions Executed(10069) == 150 Pages
> RECK: ---------------
> RECK: simulations for these function still exist:
> RECK: entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, stack == 001038C4 EIP == 00001216
> RECK: entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, stack == 0014E2EC EIP == 000015d2
>
> Two simulations of DDD (known as _DDD due to being compiled in the
> Microsoft COFF) are left abandoned during the HHH(DDD) test case called
> by main.
>
> The new code finds these.
>
> The first one at EIP 001216 is the one that was abandoned by HHH; the second
> one is its child allocated by its own call to HHH. That one is not abandoned,
> it just stopped due to the whole show being suspended by HHH's abort.
>
> RECK: ---------------
> RECK: continuing simulation of entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, stack == 001038C4
>
> The reckoning module revives the DDD simulated by the directly called
> HHH from main, left abandoned by it. It is at going to execute from EIP
> == 00001216 where it left off.
>
> RECK: test case allocated new simulation: 0015e2f4:00000000:0015e314:0015e350:0015e38c
> New slave_stack at:15e38c
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:16e394
For info - the "Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation" message is an indicator that a new global trace
table has been allocated, and this HHH will monitor for non-halting patterns. (Inner HHH's do not
do this, but you will still see the "New slave_stack" messages from those.)
>
> These diagnostics are evidence that the reanimation of DDD has resulted
> in a new simulation of DDD starting up.
Right. This will be the DDD[3] simulation performed by HHH[2].
BUT... the state of the simulations has been materially altered in between being abandoned and
resumed by your RECK code: HHH[0] reset the global execution_trace variable before it returned, and
that's the variable which HHH uses to identify "inner/outer" instances when simulating. HHH[0] was
outer, HHH[1] and subsequent nested HHHs would be inner - except that now HHH[0] has reset the
global data, the /next/ simulated HHH will magically become a new outer HHH! What a mess... (not
your fault in the slightest, of course.)
HHH[2] will eventually spot "non-halting" behaviour in DDD[4] and abort it, then return, so HHH[1]
will see DDD[2] halt, and DDD[1] will then halt because DDD (unlike DD) does not have the "do the
opposite" code. Note that HHH[1] will NOT spot the same pattern in DDD[3], because HHH[1] has
"root=0", making it an "inner" HHH. (Inner to HHH[0]). HHH[2] has magically become an "outer" HHH
as explained above.) That's all confirmed in your trace below.
The larger picture conclusion of all of this is rendered meaningless, as it's just the interplay of
misused global data which is determining the behaviour you're observing!
Perhaps I should get your RECK code incorporated into my play version of PO's code. (That has the
global data issue fixed. Then your code would genuinely be demonstrating something about the nature
of nested simulations, rather than about the misuse of global data...) We ought to be able to
resume the next abandoned sim which should be HHH[2] (not HHH[3]) and see the start of your infinite
tower!?
>
> RECK: 00002172 is _DDD
> RECK: newly executing: entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, stack == 0015E38C
>
> The reckoning mdoule recognizes that the new simulation that just fired
> up is again _DDD, starting at 0002172.
>
> RECK: test case allocated new simulation: 001a8d1c:00000000:001a8d3c:001a8d78:001a8db4
> New slave_stack at:1a8db4
> RECK: 00002172 is _DDD
> RECK: newly executing: entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, stack == 001A8DB4
>
> And yet again! Another nested simulation!
Hey, why didn't HHH[1] detect infinite recursion? :)
>
> But ...
>
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> The incorrect abort criteria again fire for the reanimated DDD. The
> simulated HHH is returning 0 to the simulated HHH.
>
> RECK: simulation of entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, stack == 001038C4 reached code_end!
> RECK: ---------------
> RECK: reckoning completed
>
> And that zero received by the simulated DDD, it terminates, reaching the
> 0002183 code_end.
>
> The stack == 001038C4 confirms that what terminated was the fist one of
> these two:
>
> RECK: simulations for these function still exist:
> RECK: entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, stack == 001038C4 EIP == 00001216
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> RECK: entry == 00002172 (_DDD), code_end == 00002183, stack == 0014E2EC EIP == 000015d2
>
> That is the first abandoned DDD, created by the top level HHH(DDD) call
> out of main.
>
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 12:53 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 20:05 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 14:20 -0400
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-25 20:44 +0100
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-10-25 11:44 -0700
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 13:58 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 17:17 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 00:44 +0000
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 19:51 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:06 -0400
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 18:09 -0700
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 01:16 +0000
A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 20:20 -0500
Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:28 -0400
Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 20:32 -0500
Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:38 -0400
Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 01:50 +0000
Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 20:58 -0500
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 02:02 +0000
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:04 -0500
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 03:46 +0000
Kaz proves his deceit by dodging this simple point --- Is Kaz just a Liar ??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 23:10 -0500
Re: Kaz proves his deceit by dodging this simple point --- Is Kaz just a Liar ??? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 04:52 +0000
Re: Kaz proves his deceit by dodging this simple point --- Is Kaz just a Liar ??? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-27 20:59 -0400
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-10-26 20:15 -0600
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:20 -0500
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 19:25 -0700
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:35 -0400
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:38 -0500
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:43 -0400
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:45 -0500
olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:47 -0400
dbush is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:52 -0500
olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:57 -0400
dbush proves his deceit by dodging this simple point olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:11 -0500
Can someone from comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++ help out here? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:02 -0500
olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 23:04 -0400
dbush proves is deceit by dodging this simple point olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:09 -0500
olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 23:14 -0400
dbush proves his deceit by dodging this simple point --- dbush is a bot? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:42 -0500
olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 07:25 -0400
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 04:47 +0000
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 23:54 -0500
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 07:30 -0400
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 18:36 +0000
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 11:55 -0700
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-27 05:59 +0000
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 08:18 -0500
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-27 16:50 +0000
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 11:58 -0500
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 11:48 -0700
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-27 03:31 +0100
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:36 -0500
Re: Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-10-27 14:08 +0000
I am only in these groups because I have been cheated out of a fair review. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 09:48 -0500
Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 01:38 +0000
Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has --- Now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 20:45 -0500
Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has --- Now dishonored in his deceit dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:49 -0400
dbush is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 20:56 -0500
Re: dbush is now dishonored in his deceit dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:05 -0400
Re: dbush is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:15 -0500
olcott tries to hide the evidence that he admitted the input to HHH(DD) is halting dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 22:33 -0400
Re: A dishonest dodge is all that Kaz has --- Now dishonored in his deceit Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 01:57 +0000
Kaz is now dishonored in his deceit olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 20:59 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-10-27 04:32 +0000
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 23:35 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 16:45 +0000
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 11:53 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 18:48 +0000
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-25 21:20 -0400
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko Levanto <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-26 11:06 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 09:11 +0100
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 08:15 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 16:04 +0100
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 10:19 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 17:41 +0100
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 11:52 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 16:58 +0000
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 12:02 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 18:42 +0000
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 13:53 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 15:20 -0400
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 14:33 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 15:40 -0400
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 14:53 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 16:12 -0400
PO Meltdown? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 20:48 +0000
Re: PO Meltdown? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 17:07 -0400
Re: PO Meltdown? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 21:14 +0000
Re: PO Meltdown? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 00:37 +0000
Kaz is a damned liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 19:44 -0500
Re: Kaz is a damned liar Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 00:52 +0000
Re: Kaz is a damned liar "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 19:05 -0700
Kaz is a damned liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 19:44 -0500
Re: PO Meltdown? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-10-28 02:24 +0000
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 22:18 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 23:27 -0400
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 03:40 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 22:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 23:47 -0400
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 03:54 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 23:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 06:02 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-10-28 15:18 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 11:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 16:44 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-10-28 17:24 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 15:15 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 16:18 -0400
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 20:23 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 16:00 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 21:23 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 16:33 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 18:01 -0400
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 12:03 -0700
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 19:56 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 13:27 -0700
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-10-28 08:40 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 09:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 12:08 -0700
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-03 14:06 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 10:13 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 00:04 -0400
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 23:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 05:48 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 22:51 -0700
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 07:48 -0400
Re: PO Meltdown? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 03:31 +0000
Re: PO Meltdown? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 13:25 +0800
Re: PO Meltdown? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 00:32 -0500
Re: PO Meltdown? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 05:53 +0000
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 09:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 16:48 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 15:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 21:26 +0000
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 00:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 22:46 -0700
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 21:58 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 19:59 -0700
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 23:10 -0400
Kaz insists on dodging this point only because he knows it is irrefutable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 17:40 -0500
Re: Kaz insists on dodging this point only because he knows it is irrefutable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 00:23 +0000
Re: Kaz insists on dodging this point only because he knows it is irrefutable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 19:29 -0500
Re: Kaz insists on dodging this point only because he knows it is irrefutable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 20:32 -0400
Re: Kaz insists on dodging this point only because he knows it is irrefutable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 00:41 +0000
Re: Kaz insists on dodging this point only because he knows it is irrefutable +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 19:48 -0500
Re: Kaz insists on dodging this point only because he knows it is irrefutable +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 20:52 -0400
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 18:01 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 19:05 -0400
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 18:11 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 18:38 -0700
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-28 03:21 +0000
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 22:44 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 23:46 -0400
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 22:38 -0700
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 07:55 -0400
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2025-10-27 18:57 +0100
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-27 12:10 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 08:45 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 17:03 +0000
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 12:05 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2025-10-27 19:00 +0100
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 19:59 +0000
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 17:38 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-28 11:09 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-28 10:06 +0000
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 09:52 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-29 13:02 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 11:29 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 12:48 -0700
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-30 12:24 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 08:15 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-31 13:53 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 08:42 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 10:13 -0400
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-01 11:22 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:27 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 09:53 -0400
understand this simple C ? --- counter-factual assumptions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 09:22 -0500
Re: understand this simple C ? --- counter-factual assumptions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 10:37 -0400
Re: understand this simple C ? --- counter-factual assumptions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 09:41 -0500
Re: understand this simple C ? --- counter-factual assumptions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 11:24 -0400
Re: understand this simple C ? --- counter-factual assumptions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 10:32 -0500
Re: understand this simple C ? --- counter-factual assumptions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 11:44 -0400
Re: understand this simple C ? --- counter-factual assumptions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 12:04 -0500
Re: understand this simple C ? --- counter-factual assumptions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 14:14 -0400
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-02 14:35 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 17:31 -0600
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-03 23:48 +0000
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-04 12:00 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-29 13:01 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 09:55 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-29 13:03 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 11:29 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 12:49 -0700
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-30 12:29 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 08:17 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-31 14:02 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 08:50 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 12:58 -0700
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-01 11:32 +0200
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:32 -0500
Re: No human has been able to understand this simple C in three years "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 18:50 -0700
csiph-web