Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #137334
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy |
| Subject | on mathematical ghosts |
| Date | 2025-12-07 15:21 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10h5255$3q2dm$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <rQ_YQ.49588$Bfr.1832@fx17.iad> <10h27th$2v616$2@dont-email.me> <w%1ZQ.26591$4LD1.16707@fx10.iad> <10h4tch$3ofqt$1@dont-email.me> <KonZQ.214886$uGW5.15275@fx14.iad> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 12/7/25 2:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/7/25 4:59 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 12/6/25 2:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/6/25 4:41 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 12/6/25 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 12/6/25 2:34 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 12/5/25 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/4/25 3:22 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>> keep in mind: all real TMs exist, undecidable machines do not >>>>>>>> exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But "Undecidability" isn't about a particular "machine", but >>>>>>> about a general problem, a total MAPPING of the (infinite) set of >>>>>>> inputs to there respective output. It is the statement that there >>>>>>> can not exist a "Program" (as defined by the theory, which are >>>>>>> finite definite algorithms) that can recreate the mapping. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For halting, every given program is know to either halt or not, >>>>>>> the problem is to be able to universally give that answer >>>>>>> correctly in finite time. THAT can't be done (universally, i.e. >>>>>>> for any possible input machine). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> see, if we do not have a general halting decider then there must >>>>>>>> be some input machine L, which is the first machine in the full >>>>>>>> enumeration who's halting semantics cannot be decided up for >>>>>>>> some kind of semantics (like halting). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it means that for every machine in that enumeration, there is >>>>>>> a machine that it will give a wrong answer to (or fail to >>>>>>> answer), and >>>>>> >>>>>> let me boil this down: >>>>>> >>>>>> all "proven" examples of what are actually hypothetical machines >>>>>> that could not be decided upon, not only do not exist, they >>>>>> actually could not exist... and therefore they *do not* and *will >>>>>> not* come up in a full enumeration of machines >>>>> >>>>> Where do you see that? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> so what is the *real* example of a machine that demonstrably >>>>>> cannot be decided upon??? >>>>> >>>>> That isn't the question, so just a straw man. The issues isn't an >>>>> example, but the full question. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> if you tell me: look at these hypothetical undecidable machine >>>>>> that cannot exist, but from that we can just extrapolate *real* >>>>>> forms of such machines that certainly can exist ... ??? >>>>> >>>>> But that isn't what the proofs do. >>>>> >>>>> All you are doing is showing a misunderstanding of the problem. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> but like ok, if ur so certain they *must* exist, what is an >>>>>> example of one??? >>>>>> >>>>>> i'm not buying this whole if hypotheticals can be presented, then >>>>>> certainly *real* variations of it exist ... where else would >>>>>> hypothesizing about something just like fucking imply non- >>>>>> hypothetical forms of it actually exist as real constructs??? >>>>> >>>>> And a proof can be made, that for *ANY* machine you can make and >>>>> want to claim to be a correct halt decider, I can make a machine >>>>> and input to give to it that it will get wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Since I can do that for EVERY machine you make, there can not be a >>>>> machine that gets all input correct. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> what that input machine is, can very well differ depending on >>>>>>> which machine in the enumeration you are looking at. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> well, first off: all the proofs for undecidability use purely >>>>>>>> hypothetical machines, which then are declared to not exist, so >>>>>>>> none of those machines could be *real* machine L. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not "ALL", but the classic one. and the input derived WOULD BE a >>>>>>> real machine if the decider it was built on was an actual machine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so what is this proposed non-hypothetical *real* machine L that >>>>>>>> then cannot be decided? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But that isn't the claim. It isn't that there is a specific >>>>>>> machine L that can't be decided, and in fact, there can't be such >>>>>>> a machine, as there are two poor deciders, we can all Yes, and >>>>>>> No, that always answer for every input their given answer, ONE of >>>>>>> those MUST be right, so there can not be a single specific >>>>>>> machine that all get wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That idea is just part of Peter Olcotts stupidity and >>>>>>> misunderstanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and could that machine L even exist? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> let's say someone found that limit L and demonstrated this >>>>>>>> property that it cannot be decided upon by a halting decider ... >>>>>>>> but then next step in undecidable proofs is to declare the >>>>>>>> machine's non- existence, because an undecidable machine is also >>>>>>>> not a deterministic machine, which ultimately contradicts the >>>>>>>> fact that this limit machine L was suppose to actually *exist*, >>>>>>>> so how could it ever exist? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and if the limit machine L does not actually exist, then how are >>>>>>>> TM semantics not generally decidable??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> good god guys, it's so tiring arguing against what is seemingly >>>>>>>> irreconcilable nonsense. but bring it on my dudes, how do u >>>>>>>> think i'm wrong this time??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And your problem he is you are working on the wrong problem, >>>>>>> because "someone" has spewed out so much misinformaiton that he >>>>>>> has reduced the intelligence of the world. >>>>>> >>>>>> no bro, please read this carefully: these really are my own thots >>>>>> that i've mostly developed on my own without much external >>>>>> validation anywhere. polcott is an interesting character, but we >>>>>> haven't yet seen eye to eye enough for much influence to happen >>>>>> either way >>>>> >>>>> Because it seems, you don't understand what the actual problem is, >>>>> or how the proof actually work. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> unlike polcott, i'm personally not sure what to do about godel's >>>>>> incompleteness, and i'm not making claims about it because it's >>>>>> just outside the scope i'm trying to address >>>>> >>>>> So, you don't care about logic that has the power to express the >>>>> Natural Numbers? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i'm trying to address the theory of computing, not math as a whole >>>>> >>>>> But the theory of computing is based on logic that can express the >>>>> Natural numbers, and thus that part of mathematics comes in. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem isn't that some given machine can't be decided if it >>>>>>> halts or not, but that for every machine that claims to be a >>>>>>> decider, there will be an input for which it gives the wrong >>>>>>> answer, or it fails to answers. >>>>>> >>>>>> i know this is hard to really consider: >>>>>> >>>>>> what is an example of a *real machine that exists*, where this >>>>>> behavior demonstrably happens??? >>>>> >>>>> Since it is proven that there can't be a correct decider, what are >>>>> you asking for? >>>>> >>>>> As I said, for *ANY* "Halt Decider" that you want to try to claim >>>>> is universally correct, I can make an input that shows the claim to >>>>> be wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Your problem is you have the question backwards. It isn't that >>>>> there is a machine that no machine can get the right answer for, as >>>>> that is clearly wrong, but there is no machine that can always get >>>>> the right answer. >>>>> >>>>> I side affect of this, is that there WILL be machines that we can >>>>> not know the answer for, but we can't know if a given machine is >>>>> one of them, as knowing that lets you know what the answer is, as >>>>> the only unknowable halting state machines are non-halting, as ALL >>>>> halting machine can be shown to be halting by just running them >>>>> till the halt. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> sure you can throw around hypothetical examples of undecidable >>>>>> machines all day long, i've spent a lot of time considering them >>>>>> myself, probably more than you actually... >>>>> >>>>> And, as I have said, that isn't the concept to consider, as we >>>>> can't know that a machine is undecidable. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> but like what about a *real* machine, that *actually exists*??? >>>>> >>>>> Which is an answer we can never know the answer to (at least >>>>> possibly, I am not sure if we can actually prove such an existance, >>>>> only its potential to exist) >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, a side effect of this fact, it becomes true that there >>>>>>> exists some machine/input combinations that we can not know if >>>>>>> they halt or not, but another side effect of this is we can't >>>>>>> tell if a given machine is one of them, as by definition any >>>>>>> machine we can't know if it halts or not, must be non-halting, as >>>>>>> any halting machine can be >>>> >>>> bruh ... do u not recognize the inherent contradiction in say in all >>>> machines which can't know the halting of ... must therefore be non- >>>> halting??? >>> >>> What is the contradiction in that? >>> >>> Do you understand the difference between knowABLE, and knowN. >>> >>> Any machine that halts, can ALWAYS be proven it halts by running it >>> enough steps, as there must be some finite number of steps to run it >>> till it halts, as that is the DEFINITION of Halting, and a finite >>> number of steps makes a proof that gives knowledge. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> like u literally just decided what they all must be after claiming >>>> they are machiens which we cannot know the halting status of ... >>> >>> Right, but we can't KNOW that we can't know their halting status. All >>> we can know is we haven't found the status YET. Not knowN can be >>> either halting or non-halting, halting if we haven't run it yet. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> proven to halt, just by running it for enough steps. >>>>>> >>>>>> honestly richard, i think i just stumbled right into a core >>>>>> contradiction baked into the theory of computing that has gone >>>>>> almost entirely unnoticed besides a few "cranks" on the internet, >>>>>> >>>>>> none of which have put it so succinctly like i've done so in the >>>>>> last day >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, the problem is you keep on looking for that which the theory >>>>> says is unknowable. We can show that there are machines that we can >>>>> not know the halting property of, but we can never know if a >>>>> machine is in that class. >>>>> >>>>> We can know that no machine can be a correct decider, as for any >>>>> claimed decider, we can show an input that it gets wrong. Thus no >>>>> universally correct deciders, which IS the question possed by the >>>>> problem. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> One way of looking at this, is we can take all machines, and we know >>> that they must fall into exactly 2 categories >>> Halting or >>> Non-Halting, >>> >>> But ore knowledge of them divdes them into three categories: >>> >>> Known Halting, >>> Known Non-Halting, or >>> Unknown Halting Status. >>> >>> And this last category we know can consist of machines in 3 >>> categories (but we don't know which for a given machine): >>> Yet-to-be-known, but Knowable, Halting >>> Yet-to-be-known, but Knowable, Non-Halting >>> Not Knowable Non-Halting. >>> >>> All Halting machines are Knowable, even if not-yet known, as running >>> them enough (but for a still finite number of steps) will reach the >>> halt state, and thus it not yet being know is just because we haven't >>> run it far enough. >>> >>> For the Yet-to-be-know but Knowable Non-Halting Machines, there >>> exists a proof, to be discovered, that proves that it will not halt. >>> >>> For the Unknowable machines, they can't be Halting, as we showed that >>> all halting machines are knowable by just running them long enough. >>> There is nothing that says we must be able to find a proof of non- >>> halting, and the fact that Halting is non-decidable seems to imply >>> that this category can't be empty, or our decider just needs to apply >>> the appropriate proof of non-halting to correctly decide. The fact >>> that there are an infinite number of possible proofs may allow this >>> category to be empty, but I am not sure you can prove that. >>> >>> As I point out, It can't be possible to prove that a machine is in >>> this unknowable category, as only non-halting machines can be >>> unknowable, and thus a proof that a machine is in this category can't >>> be correct, or the whole logic system is proven inconsistant. This is >>> similar to the point that Godel uses in his incompleteness proof, as >>> if you could prove the sentence true, that proof creates the counter >>> example that makes the sentence false, thus no proof can exist. >> >> great so u've ended up in the situation of certainly believing in >> "unknowable" (yet certainly non-halting) machines, >> >> that you can't even prove exist, > > I don't need to prove they exist, as that isn't what the problem is > talking about. > > Undecidabiity just means that you can't make a decider that gets all the > answers right, and THAT is fully provable with a simple proof. > > The meta-logic to show that there exists some machines that we CAN'T > know, is a different problem, and much more complicated. > >> >> except for apparent demonstration with hypothetical machines that then >> can't even exist, >> >> i... just... >> >> /that is fucking crazy bro/ > > It is the reasonable outcome of the fact that is reasonable to prove, > that there can never be a machine that decides all input correctly, and > thus the Halting Problem is undecidable. > >> >> *there has to be some machine L at which "unknowability" can be >> pointed to*, why?? because we can partially decide this function, then >> there must be some maximally partial decidable, and with that there >> *must* be some *real* *existent* machine L which that maximally >> partial decidability "breaks down" and cannot be decided upon! > > Nope. To prove that it is undecidable, you just need to prove that no > decider gets all answers right. > > It is theoretically conceivable that there could be a proof that can be > discovered, but only after a potentially infinite search, for every > machine. > >> >> if ur theory can't tolerate that, THEN ITS BROKEN NUMBNUTS > > My theory can't tolerate what? That we might be able to know the answer > to every possible instance, but that knowledge can't come from a finite > machine? > > >> >> which it can't because if u could point that machine L, then according >> to u we'd know it was a non-halting machine, which contradicts it >> being machine L. so machine L, the first point were maximum >> decidability breaks down can't even be known! > > Right, we can't possible KNOW that a given machine is unknowable. As the > meta-information defines the value of the question. > > Nothing wrong with that, it is just a property of unknowable things. > >> >> you can't even tell me what form a machine looks like when it's >> unknowable, because none of the arguments for undecidable machines >> utilize machines *that actually exist*, and furthermore, if u could >> point to one of these "unknowable" machines it would cease to be >> unknowable!! > > So? You seem to be hung up on the side issue of the existance of > unkmowable machines. We CAN say some things about their behavior, just > not enough to know if a given machine is unknowable. This just comes > from the incompleteness of logic in powerful enough systems. > >> >> i'm sorry, this is like fucking believing in mathematical ghosts bro, >> >> LOGIC HAS LEFT THE DISCUSSION >> > > Only for you. it seems you just can't handle talking about things that > are unknowable. By their nature, logic can't tell us much about them, > only if the can/might exists. We know that there MUST be statements that > are unprovable in truth value, and from more advance proofs, that even > as we go down layers of meta-logic that might be able to prove some > statements, there will ALWAYS be some statements that are unprovable, > and if they are unprovable in ALL systems, they are unknowable. yah bro u keep going on about those unknowable limits to decidability that u can't even point to a *real* example of because being able to do so would contradict the premise that this unknowable limit even exists in the first place! god damn bro -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-04 00:22 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 10:49 +0200
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-04 01:10 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 12:26 +0200
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-05 20:31 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-05 23:34 -0800
I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:16 -0600
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 08:41 -0800
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 11:00 -0600
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 14:07 +0200
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 01:26 +0000
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:17 -0600
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 06:36 +0000
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 10:25 -0600
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 11:29 -0600
Re: I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 13:28 +0200
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 13:44 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 13:22 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-06 13:41 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 17:21 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 16:57 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 22:07 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 13:32 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 17:48 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 12:22 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 05:59 +0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 16:25 -0600
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 16:24 -0600
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 21:58 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 20:31 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-07 13:59 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 17:41 -0500
on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-07 15:21 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 21:42 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-07 20:28 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 07:31 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 11:51 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 19:13 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 17:30 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:24 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 19:06 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 22:19 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 19:38 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:00 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 23:20 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:33 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 09:53 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:51 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 09:39 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 20:54 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts --- PLO polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 23:02 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 23:12 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 21:23 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-09 10:55 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 05:56 +0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-11 11:35 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 14:45 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-11 13:02 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 15:20 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-12 21:22 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 07:15 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-13 08:01 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 10:22 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:48 +0200
Re: on mathematical ghosts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:42 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-15 15:00 +0000
Re: on mathematical ghosts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:56 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:44 +0200
Re: on mathematical ghosts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 08:39 -0600
Re: on mathematical ghosts Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-16 12:07 +0200
The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 11:30 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:01 +0200
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 22:08 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-17 23:29 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 22:49 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-17 23:53 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 12:39 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 19:53 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 00:00 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 02:38 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 07:22 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-19 22:07 +0000
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-19 17:55 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-20 12:54 +0000
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 08:32 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 07:00 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 08:32 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 08:07 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 09:41 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 08:51 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 13:56 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-18 13:03 +0200
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 07:06 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 19:53 -0500
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-19 12:02 +0200
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-19 08:44 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-20 12:05 +0200
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 05:42 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-21 12:29 +0200
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-12 10:02 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-12 21:18 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-13 09:26 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-13 17:17 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-13 20:50 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-14 10:46 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 15:22 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-15 11:13 -0800
Re: on mathematical ghosts Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-14 21:07 +0000
Re: on just search the literature bruh dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-15 11:32 -0800
Re: on just search the literature bruh olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 14:42 -0600
Re: on just search the literature bruh dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-15 22:40 -0800
Re: on just search the literature bruh Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 07:04 -0500
Re: on just search the literature bruh "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 12:05 -0800
Re: on just search the literature bruh Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-16 13:27 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-16 21:41 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-17 07:31 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 13:07 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 13:14 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 13:24 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 13:54 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 14:09 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 17:05 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-17 23:30 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 20:50 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 00:06 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 22:04 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 22:14 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 22:17 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 23:13 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 16:35 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 16:39 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 18:45 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 16:54 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 19:06 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 21:13 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 16:46 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 20:57 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-19 14:09 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-19 18:07 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-19 19:33 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2025-12-19 20:14 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-22 17:31 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-19 22:15 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 07:22 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 21:11 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-19 10:11 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-19 11:10 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-19 17:01 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 01:17 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-12-20 11:21 +0000
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 11:32 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 14:50 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 13:16 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 17:02 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 16:41 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 18:11 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 17:30 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 08:32 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 16:17 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 19:42 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 17:21 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 21:57 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 19:31 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-20 22:58 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 21:23 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-20 21:52 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-21 12:07 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-21 13:14 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-21 17:32 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-21 17:40 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-21 17:56 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-21 18:17 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-21 18:22 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 00:18 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-22 13:27 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-21 18:39 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-21 21:54 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-21 21:30 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 10:10 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 10:24 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 13:33 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 10:39 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 13:49 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 10:57 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 14:02 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 11:11 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 14:45 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 12:06 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 15:37 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 12:58 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 16:26 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 19:12 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 22:16 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 19:24 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-22 22:43 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-22 21:22 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 21:22 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-12-25 00:34 +0000
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-24 21:12 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-24 22:02 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-25 07:45 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-25 07:45 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-17 22:12 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-12-18 12:33 +0000
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 07:03 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-18 19:53 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 16:16 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-18 18:19 -0600
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-18 21:12 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-12-24 22:56 +0000
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-24 15:48 -0800
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-24 21:22 -0500
Re: on what are you even crying about rick? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-17 23:30 -0500
Re: on just search the literature bruh olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 11:00 -0600
Re: on just search the literature bruh Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-16 18:15 +0000
DD simulated by HHH specifies non-halting olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 18:33 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH specifies non-halting Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH specifies non-halting Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-17 10:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH specifies non-halting olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-17 07:48 -0600
Re: on just search the literature bruh Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: on just search the literature bruh Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-15 23:16 +0000
Re: on just search the literature bruh polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 17:23 -0600
Re: on just search the literature bruh Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-16 08:39 +0000
The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 11:21 -0600
Re: The most definitive measure of the behavior of the input to H(P) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: on just search the literature bruh dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-15 22:47 -0800
Re: on just search the literature bruh Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-16 08:40 +0000
Re: on just search the literature bruh olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 11:03 -0600
Re: on just search the literature bruh Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-16 21:47 -0500
Re: on mathematical ghosts Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-13 14:43 +0000
Re: on mathematical ghosts Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-13 13:41 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 18:43 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-12-08 01:46 +0000
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-07 20:37 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 09:48 +0000
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 11:23 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-09 22:18 +0000
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-09 14:48 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 16:54 -0600
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 07:35 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 13:02 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 13:03 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 18:49 -0500
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-08 17:52 -0800
Re: on what even is the limit to decidability? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:24 -0500
csiph-web