Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #137395
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy |
| Subject | Re: on mathematical ghosts |
| Date | 2025-12-08 19:38 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10h85k2$gh76$6@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (13 earlier) <tQJZQ.1337$C_K8.133@fx42.iad> <10h7u42$gh76$3@dont-email.me> <SLLZQ.123368$3rOd.119886@fx12.iad> <10h83o5$gh76$5@dont-email.me> <GyMZQ.42204$aeF6.4919@fx40.iad> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 12/8/25 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/8/25 10:06 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 12/8/25 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/8/25 8:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 12/8/25 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 12/8/25 2:51 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 12/8/25 4:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/7/25 11:28 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/7/25 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I don't need to talk about machines with unknowable results, >>>>>>> as they aren't the topic of the problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> ... what??? the halting problem is literally ur proof they exist, >>>>>> how are they not the topic??? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope. It seems you don't understand the words I am using. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems you are stuck in a Naive Set Theory system that insists >>>>>>> on having Sets based on just a description of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> and ur stuck on believing in machine ghosts >>>>> >>>>> Nope, I believe your ghosts exist, but they are not the based of >>>>> the actual proof. >>>>> >>>>> Which is that a "Correct Halt Decider" is the ghost, as we can show >>>>> the existance of an input (that varies based on the decider we are >>>>> talking about) that it will get wrong. >>>> >>>> after which u declare that problem to not actually exist and defeat >>>> ur own proof's meaning, >>> >>> I never said the PROBLEM doesn't exist, just that no decider can >>> correctly answer the problem for all inputs. >>> >>> Maybe you don't understand the nature of problems and answers. >>> >>>> >>>> and try to make up for this by supposing (but not actually >>>> demonstrating) that there must be instead some ghost machines that >>>> look nothing like the paradoxes you construct (because those *cant* >>>> exist), but if we could point to or describe specifically in any >>>> way, that would also self-defeat their existence! >>> >>> Where did I use these ghost machines? >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> my god the kind of shit the theory of computing has been blowing up >>>> their asshole for the past century: >>> >>> The only shit is what is in your head, not understand what is being >>> said. >>> >>>> >>>> wanking on about unknowable, yet non-halting ghost machines none can >>>> ever discover lest their theory unravel into a puff of >>>> irreconcilable smoke! >>> >>> it seems you are stuck in your ghosts >>> >>>> >>>> imagine believing in limitations that can't even be known! >>> >>> Why do you say that? >>> >>> The limitation is well know, that the halting function can not be >>> computed. >>> >>> This means that EVERY attempt to compute it will give some wrong >>> answers. >>> >>> That doesn't mean there needs to be a specific input that we can't >>> know its halting, even if that might be an implication of that fact. >>> >>> For the proposition, the existance of such a machine isn't important. >>> >>> It seems you have a problem with "abstract" concepts, like having to >>> look at the answers for ALL inputs for the decider to meet the >>> requirements. >>> >>> Note, very specifically, for a given machine, there ALWAYS is a >>> machine that correctly answer for it, we just might not know which >>> machine it is that gives the answer. The the problem of Halting for >>> just a specific machine is not uncomputable, even if we don't know >>> the answer, all that means is we can't tell which machines were right >>> and which were wrong. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I am talking about is that we can prove that there can not >>>>>>> exist of a finite algorithm that will always tell if any finite >>>>>>> algorithn it is given the full description of will reach an >>>>>>> answer or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> but u can't give me a what logical structure a finite algorithm >>>>>> would provably fail in, because all the hypothetical failures >>>>>> demonstrated in undecidability proofs *DO NOT EXIST* >>>>> >>>>> Sure, for any finite halt decision algorithm, to decide on an >>>>> algorithm that uses that algorithm, and then does the opposite. >>>> >>>> i asked for a non-hypothetical example that actually exists >>> >>> Of what? >>> >>> It seems you are stuck on a strawman. >>> >>> The non-hypothetical example is that "Halting" is not decidable, as >>> there can not exist a machine that gets the right answer for every >>> possible machine given to it. >>> >>> What is a non-hypothetical example of something said not to exist? >> >> nononono, the undecidable machine *must* exist if halting cannot be >> fully decided upon ... >> >>> >>> Can you give me a non-hypothetical example of an even number greater >>> than 2 that is prime? >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> All algorithms need to fail for that form of input, which again, is >>>>> a DIFFERENT input for every claimed decider. >>>>> >>>>> We don't need to find a single input that all fail on, just that >>>>> every decider fails on at least one input, and the one they fail on >>>>> can be different for every decider. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since such a decider doesn't exist, we of course can't "describe" >>>>>>> it, except by point out its absence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, we can enumerate over all machines, and divide them into 3 >>>>>>> classes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Known to Halt, >>>>>>> Known to not Halt. >>>>>>> We don't know (possibly just yet) what they do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In that last class, there may be some that we can prove that with >>>>>>> more work we CAN determine if they will halt or not, but there >>>>>>> will be some which we can't (perhaps yet) determine if we can do >>>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>> well apparently that set will contain machines we *cannot* *ever* >>>>>> know, that we *cannot* *know* that we *cannot* *know*, so you >>>>>> can't even show me the form of the machine that is not mappable, >>>>>> ur just presuming it exists >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What "Set"? That is the problem, you can't construct that set by >>>>> any consistent set theory. >>>>> >>>>> You need to rely on "Naive" set theory to build your set, you end >>>>> up with inconsistant logic. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, the set of machines which we can not know their behavior is >>>>>>> not a valid set to talk about except in a Naive Set theory, which >>>>>>> will itself be inconsistant. The fact you keep on harping about >>>>>>> that set says you don't understand the problem with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> this is computing theory bro, it's a lot more constrained a >>>>>> possibility space than set theory theory, set theory needs to >>>>>> encompass infinite sets of real numbers ... computing does not >>>>> >>>>> So? If you can't build the set, you can't use it in your arguement. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your logic seems to be based on trying to solve Russel's Teapot, >>>>>>> which >>>>>> >>>>>> ur claiming there's certainly a fucking teapot out there that >>>>>> *can't* be found or else it wouldn't exist! >>>>> >>>>> Nope, my comment was that there might be a teapot out there, the >>>> >>>> MIGHT?!?! BRO, you claim there *MUST* be one ... holy shit bro >>> >>> No, where did I say that an undecidable machine must exist? >>> >>> I claim that no decider can get every input correct, and THAT is the >>> definition that makes the problem uncomputable. >> >> THEREFORE some machines must exist that said decider cannot decide upon: >> >> the "undecidable" machines, >> > > Nope, because nothing says that machine can't be decider by other machines. that's also just fucking speculation on ur part since you can't even point to this machine which cannot be decided by one partial decider, but can be by another > >> that can't look anything like the hypothetical machines in >> undecidability proofs that don't actually exist??? > > Nope, THAT decider didn't give the correct answer, not that NO machine > cna give the correct answer. when it comes to hypothesized undecidable proofs ... no machine can correctly decide: und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever(), not just halts() so know ur just fucking cherry-picking behavior randomly without proof or a system to justify it because it suits the world view u've been taught for this point in the discussion and ur feel confident to not justify anything with specifics... because if u could actually point to *real* examples of machines that cannot be decided, then ur fucking theory fucking falls apart holy fuck, i can't believe this kinda trash is the consensus > > You seem to have a fundamental problem with qualifiers. cut that gaslighting shit out bro > >> >>> >>> I point out that this seems to imply that there likely is some >>> machine that we can't know if it halts or not, and an implication of >>> that unknowability is that that machine (if it exists) must not halt. >>> >> >> you only speculate it must exist, but the speculation goes so far as >> to claim that speculation is the best we can do, that we cannot even >> specifically know what form of machine it is ... or ur whole freaking >> theory here falls apart > > No, for a given machine, we have the recipe to build the input that it > will get wrong. but none of fucking hypotheticals actually exist!!! what about deciding on *only* machines that actually exist??? i'm imaging u asking next: "how do you limit the input to only machines that exist???" like, WHAT IN THE FUCK!??? only machines that exist in the full enumeration, actually exist! > > Thus, for any existing machine you want to claim to be a prospective > halt decider, I can show an input that it gets wrong. > >> >>>> >>>> ur not operating on speculation, u are proposing there exists a >>>> *hard* and *certain* but *unknowable* teapot that would cease to >>>> exist if it were ever found... >>> >>> Nope, I don't need the "teapot" to exist for Halting to not be >>> computab;le. >> >> yeah u do: if a decider cannot handle ever input, then there must >> exist the input that the decider cannot handle > > No I don't, as I can provide a physically demonstratable input for ANY > machine you want to put forward. > > I don't need to find that elusive unknowable machine. u just need to speculate endlessly about it and assert it's truth, because ur so convinced that ur broken ass theory of computing is coherent > > >> >> u are asserting that the teapot *must* exist, and go so far as to >> claim that even if we can look at it (which we can, because we can >> enumerate all machines, err "teapots"), we just can't know that the >> teapot is the specific teapot we're looking for >> > > That the teapot must exist is a RESULT of the fact that we can show that > the problem is uncomputable. If we had an algorithm that allowed us to > KNOW the behavior of every machine, then we could make the input on > whatever that algorithm that we used to know about machines, and that > algorithm would be wrong about that machine. or maybe theory is just broken instead of fixing it, u shoved it under a fucking rug for the last century in fear of machines that you do nothing more than speculate about > >>> >>>> >>>> and ignore the fact we can certainly enumerate over it. we can >>>> infact write this teapot down, we apparently just can't know the >>>> teapot is the teapot we're looking for >>> >>> Ok, then what even number greater than 2 can not be written as the >>> sum of two primes? >>> >>>> >>>> the state of computing theory is mind numbingly ghastly >>> >>> Nope, your understanding of it is. >> >> i don't buy into claims of fundamentally unknowable ghosts that *must* >> exist bro > > That is your problem. > > What can you PROVE about it? > > How do you handle the fact that you can't make a correct decider for ALL > inputs? > > How can you KNOW the answer, if you can't make an algorithm to tell you? > > Your problem is you don't understand how knowledge comes about. > Knowledge comes form things that are computable/provable. The fact we > can show that some things can not be computed/proven means that some > things can not be known. > > One of the problems is that while we can know what we know, we can't > tell out of what we don't know can't be known, and which might > eventually become known. You seem to want to lable this lack of > knowledge a "ghost", when it is just reality. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> unknowable machine. I don't need the unknowable machine to prove >>>>> undecidability. >>>>> >>>>> It seems you are just stuck looking at the case that I point out >>>>> might exists, and just ignore the fact that you keep on misusing >>>>> the terminology. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> is just a logic error. It just shows that there are things whose >>>>>>> existance / non-existence just are not practically knowable. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- 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