Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #137346
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts |
| Date | 2025-12-07 20:28 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10h5k5s$3teui$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <w%1ZQ.26591$4LD1.16707@fx10.iad> <10h4tch$3ofqt$1@dont-email.me> <KonZQ.214886$uGW5.15275@fx14.iad> <10h5255$3q2dm$1@dont-email.me> <3WqZQ.225464$uGW5.174443@fx14.iad> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 12/7/25 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/7/25 6:21 PM, dart200 wrote: >> 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 >> > > Because Turing PROVED that the Halting Problem can't be computed, thus, > the limit exists. > > We may not be able to precisely define the line betweem computable and > non-computable (or decidable vs non-decidable), but we know it exists as > we have things know to be on both sides. > > We have a number of general propositions that have been proven to be > uncomputable/undecidable, like the Halting Problem. > > When we narrow the question to a specific machine, that machine can fall > into 3 camps. > > Known to Halt. > Known to Never Halt. > Unknown in behavior (but we know it will either halt of not). > > The question of knowABILITY is tougher, as it is easy to prove we know > an answer (if we do) as knowing the answer shows it is knowable. > > Showing that some things might be knowable but not currently know is > possible, but that does NOT mean we can answer the knowability question > for all things that are knowable. > > Why are you so stuck in the fact that between the domain of the > decidable and the undeciable there is a band of "we don't know" that > might contain some things that "we can't know". > > This is part of the problem of working in infinite spaces, you can > always end up with a piece you don't know about. u put urself in a mathematical jam, can't actually show me what one of these apparently non-halting machines with "unknown" behavior actually looks like because then ur theory falls apart, despite the fact we can in fact emuerate over all machines ... so idk wtf u think u'r actually talking about there buddy -- 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