Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #133996
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.lang.c |
| Subject | D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own first line |
| Date | 2025-10-27 22:18 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10dpcla$1h91e$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (14 earlier) <20251027134227.763@kylheku.com> <10domv4$14hfe$4@dont-email.me> <20251027141041.643@kylheku.com> <20251027172403.730@kylheku.com> <10dp9h8$1gcin$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 10/27/2025 9:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 28/10/2025 00:37, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-10-27, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
>>> On 2025-10-27, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/27/2025 4:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-10-27, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I am only referring to these fifteen lines
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A straight forward sequence of steps that any
>>>>>>> C programmer can easily determine:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you have nothing as this is incomplete and cannot be run.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I posted the git repo several days ago, Olcott immediately
>>>>> called me dishonest and replied with the above nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> He has been repeating it ever since.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically a meltdown, of sorts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah, he's thrashing. He knows he's been beat and doesn't dare look
>>>> at your code, lest he has to admit he wasted the last 21 years.
>>>
>>> But I explained that the code can help you validate that your cheats are
>>> working. If you want to say that DDD simulated by HHH does not halt, and
>>> not be lying, you can now test that actual claim. If the simulated DDD
>>> halts, and you would like it not to, you have something to iterate
>>> against to get that fixed.
>>>
>>> Every engineer would be happy to have an easy, ready-made way to test
>>> the property of their system that they want to believe to be true.
>>>
>>> Instead of thank you, we get a childish tantrum.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it is not that rosy. The problem is that Olcott has not
>> only been claiming that various D's do not terminate when simulated
>> by various H's. He's been claiming that the D's do not terminate because
>> they never reach the "do the opposite" logic at all.
>>
>> For instance, I ran a test on an old Halt.obj pulled from the git
>> history, and found that when its simulation of the abandoned DD is
>> continued, it soon hits an infinite loop.
>>
>> While, for that .obj file, it confirms the claim that the simulated DD
>> doesn't terminate, the problem is that the simulated DD in that
>> situation fails to terminate due to getting into the infinite loop,
>> which is only possible because the simulated HHH(DD) returned non-zero
>> to simulated DD.
>>
>> Thus the simulated HHH says, about the doubly-simulated DD, that the
>> doubly-simulated DD halts A bug or cheat has been exposed in the
>> machine; it is contradicting itself.
>
> Right. To be overly charitable to PO, I don't believe PO coded things
> this way with any intent at "cheating". Firstly, he just didn't see how
> to do it "properly", but if he had he'd have probably done it that way.
> [Cleaner code without the global data misuse would be fewer lines of
> code than what PO ended up with!] Secondly, I think he sees what he did
> as a kind of "optimisation" rather than a cheat. He realised that it
> would be the outer HHH that always spotted the abort pattern, and that
> pattern was not affected by whether the inner HHH's actually performed
> the checks, so "no harm" if he just misses them out on the inner HHH's!
Yes that is correct.
> He just wasn't thinking ahead to your RECK resumption of abandoned
> emulations!
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
H simulates D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
until H sees this repeating pattern.
Once H has correctly determines that its simulated
D cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
instruction final halt state it is nutty to do
anything else besides abort and reject the input.
>>
>> Olcott knows that continuing the abandoned simulation uncovers
>> damning evidence against his contraption, regardless of whether it
>> halts or not.
>>
>> ne way to continue to defend it is via the following preposterous
>> argument: all the odd-numbered simulation levels of DD are
>> non-terminating, whereas the even-numbered levels (including zero,
>> directly exedcuted) are terminating. And insist that this is correct.
>>
>> That narrative is possibly too far-fetched even for the prime
>> minister of far-fetched land himself.
>>
> We've always known that PO's implementation of HHH/DD is broken, through
> the misuse of global data to communicate across emulation levels and to
> alter the behaviour of emulations depending on emulation depth. Until
> that issue is fixed, anything PO claims is /proved/ by his C code is
> nonsense. PO can only argue his code /proves/ something, if that code
> is actually correct!
>
I just exhaustively proved my whole proof again
with the above snippet.
> Unfortunately, until the global data issue is resolved, anything your
> RECK code shows about the behaviour of PO's abandoned emulations is
> effectively commenting more on the fickle behaviour of PO's global data
> interactions than anything else. A kind of nonsense-in-nonsense out!
> (Not your fault in the slightest.)
>
> I don't think PO is capable of fixing his code, and I won't be helping
> him on that front. [I did once start explaining exactly what PO needed
> to do, code-wise, but he just ignored that and continued replying as
> usual, accusing me of not paying attention and lacking basic competence
> etc., and that moment has passed!]
>
Starting over with an embedded C interpreter could work
if it was not made moot by the above code snippet.
> Meanwhile, we sometimes kind of pretend that PO has fixed the problem,
> and people discuss what his code /WOULD/ do /assuming/ that basic issue
> had been resolved. That is being charitable to PO, and is sometimes
> referred to as "steel-manning".
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning>
>
> Very little of PO's arguments would change : his HHH would still decide
> neverhalts for DD, and DD() would still halt when run directly, same as
> happens with the broken code. All the usual objections raised by
> posters here also continue to apply, so any such "steel-manned"
> arguments are still seen to be just as silly as the non-steel-manned
> versions. So we may well choose to be charitable on this point!
>
We end up at the same place as my above code snippet
already establishes. Thus people would finally see
the first step of my proof so
we could move on to the next step of semantic properties
of finite string inputs.
No decider can compute anything other than a mapping
from its finite string inputs. Everything else is outside
of the scope of Turing machines.
> [The only thing I can think of that changes would be the HHH/HHH1
> comparison: if the global data misuse were fixed, both HHH(DD) and
> HHH1(DD) would return 0, so PO would lose one of his (silly) arguments
> that emulation behaviour depends on who is doing the emulating...]
>
Not if we pay close attention to the little snippet
of code above. An H1 would take the place of HHH1.
> Your comments on how PO's abandoned emulations should behave if resumed
> would work fine if PO had fixed the global code issues - each resumed
> emulation would halt, because in effect each emulation level behaves the
> same, simply tracking the steps of the "native" computation which
> halts. So the point you are trying to convince PO of stands. [But
> unfortunately will never convince PO...]
>
>
> Mike.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
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