Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math |
| Subject | Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] |
| Message-ID | <20220625203333.00007944@reddwarf.jmc> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <_K6dnVgtXJforyr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <20220625172518.00002fb8@reddwarf.jmc> <S8udnWfpo60QpSr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <20220625201230.00000c34@reddwarf.jmc> <VNOdnS2kSbh1wir_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corp |
| Date | 2022-06-25 20:33 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 14:20:06 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/2022 2:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:32:12 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/25/2022 11:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:06:12 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/25/2022 10:59 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 10:54:13 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 6/25/2022 10:21 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 10:19:02 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 6/25/2022 10:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 10:03:17 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2022 9:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2022 2:32 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 06:24:23 UTC+1, olcott
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2022 12:09 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 05:33:53 UTC+1, olcott
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2022 11:01 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 23:16:30 UTC+1, Ben
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dry run" means that a human programmer looks at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code, and determines
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it does, without actually executing it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going back, now, to what you think needs to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved: | He's dry-run P(P) and established that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't halt. He's invoked H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | on it and H reports that it doesn't halt. He's run
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) and it halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The obvious conclusion is that PO's dry run (if he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has indeed done such
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a thing) is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We do our little energy budget on tigers, and find
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that tigers spend more energy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than they take in. Well potentially this is dynamite.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One explanation is that the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> law of conservation of energy is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except, before we countenance that explanation, we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to rule out a much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simpler explanation. Which is that our measurements
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, PO has worked out what he thinks P(P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be doing, by dry-running
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, and then actually run P(P) and obtained a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different result. He also found that H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed with the dry run. It's hard to paraphrase his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, but it is extensive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and far-reaching in its implications. The behaviour
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of code when run is different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the correct behaviour of the code when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated. If that's true, then it has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar implications for computer science that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disproving the conservation law
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has for physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the obvious explanation is that the dry-run was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. Lots of people have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested why it is incorrect. But they can't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually see the code. PO needs to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that no-one will accept the complicated,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far-reaching explanation,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until the simple explanation has been ruled out.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already proved that the dry run is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone reports that tigers use more energy than they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> take in, and concludes that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the energy conservation law is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naturally, everyone is going to say "There must be some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake. How were your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurements taken? Show us your calculations, maybe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you've got your sums wrong."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now if they are also uncooperative about sharing the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> details of the investigation,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those reservations will be magnified. There can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate reasons. Tigers are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rare and need to be conserved, you can't let anyone who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants have access to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tigers to try to repeat the measurements. But there's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also a common illegitimate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason put forwards by people who make extraordinary
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims. If the claims were
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unexceptional, such as that tigers have a similar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy budget to lions, then no-one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be saying "Show me your notebooks. How do you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that calorimeter was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calibrated accurately? What's the name of the person
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who took that measurement
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and can I interview them?" Extraordinary claims are put
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through the wringer in a way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ordinary ones are not. I've seen complaints about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this from parapsychologists.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if you're going to claim to have discovered a new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical principle, you need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to present rock solid evidence.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we can't see H. We can only suggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations for its behaviour.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you simply lack the technical competence.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Go back and look at my proof again.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry no. I've been programming since I was a boy and I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have a PhD in a computational-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> related subject. I'm confident of my technical abilities.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What I can't do of course
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is tell you exactly what is going on in code I cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>> see. I've got a pretty good idea,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> but I can only reconstruct on the basis of what you tell
> >>>>>>>>>>>> me. Ben thinks that I've
> >>>>>>>>>>>> got it wrong and in fact there are no nested emulations
> >>>>>>>>>>>> at all. I've no way of actually
> >>>>>>>>>>>> disproving that idea without seeing H.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To fully understand this a software engineer must be an
> >>>>>>>>>>> expert in: (a) The C programming language,
> >>>>>>>>>>> (b) The x86 programming language,
> >>>>>>>>>>> (c) Exactly how C translates into x86 and,
> >>>>>>>>>>> (d) The ability to recognize infinite recursion at the x86
> >>>>>>>>>>> assembly language level.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyone having the above credentials can validate my work,
> >>>>>>>>>>> if you cannot validate my work then you do not
> >>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently have the above credentials.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly how C translates into x86 is mandatory. If you
> >>>>>>>>>>> don't know how the C calling conventions are implemented
> >>>>>>>>>>> in x86 you cannot validate my work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> From a purely software engineering perspective
> >>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) is required to to correctly determine that its
> >>>>>>>>>>> correct and complete x86 emulation of its input would
> >>>>>>>>>>> never reach the "ret" instruction of this input and H
> >>>>>>>>>>> must do this in a finite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The ordinary semantics of standard C and the conventional
> >>>>>>>>>>> x86 language are the entire semantics required to
> >>>>>>>>>>> conclusively prove that H(P,P) does correctly determine
> >>>>>>>>>>> that its correct and complete x86 emulation of its input
> >>>>>>>>>>> would never reach the "ret" instruction (final state) of
> >>>>>>>>>>> this input thus never halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete x86 emulation of its input by
> >>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) would never reach the "ret" instruction of P
> >>>>>>>>>>> because both H and P would remain stuck in infinitely
> >>>>>>>>>>> nested emulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>> if (H(x, x))
> >>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> >>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001202](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001203](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001205](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001208](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001209](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000120c](01) 51 push ecx
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000120d](05) e820feffff call 00001032
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001212](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001215](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001217](02) 7402 jz 0000121b
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001219](02) ebfe jmp 00001219
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000121b](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000121c](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000121c]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _main()
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001222](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001223](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001225](05) 6802120000 push 00001202
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000122a](05) 6802120000 push 00001202
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000122f](05) e8fefdffff call 00001032
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001234](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001237](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001238](05) 68b3030000 push 000003b3
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000123d](05) e8c0f1ffff call 00000402
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001242](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001245](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001247](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001248](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0039) [00001248]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> >>>>>>>>>>> address address data code language
> >>>>>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== =========
> >>>>>>>>>>> ============= [00001222][0010200f][00000000] 55
> >>>>>>>>>>> push ebp [00001223][0010200f][00000000] 8bec mov
> >>>>>>>>>>> ebp,esp [00001225][0010200b][00001202] 6802120000 push
> >>>>>>>>>>> 00001202 // push P [0000122a][00102007][00001202]
> >>>>>>>>>>> 6802120000 push 00001202 // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000122f][00102003][00001234] e8fefdffff call 00001032
> >>>>>>>>>>> // call executed H
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:2120c3
> >>>>>>>>>>> Address_of_H:1032
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001202][002120af][002120b3] 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001203][002120af][002120b3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001205][002120af][002120b3] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001208][002120ab][00001202] 50 push eax //
> >>>>>>>>>>> push P [00001209][002120ab][00001202] 8b4d08 mov
> >>>>>>>>>>> ecx,[ebp+08] [0000120c][002120a7][00001202] 51
> >>>>>>>>>>> push ecx // push P [0000120d][002120a3][00001212]
> >>>>>>>>>>> e820feffff call 00001032 // call emulated H Infinitely
> >>>>>>>>>>> Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> H knows its own machine address and on this basis it can
> >>>>>>>>>>> easily examine its stored execution_trace of P (see above)
> >>>>>>>>>>> to determine: (a) P is calling H with the same arguments
> >>>>>>>>>>> that H was called with. (b) No instructions in P could
> >>>>>>>>>>> possibly escape this otherwise infinitely recursive
> >>>>>>>>>>> emulation. (c) H aborts its emulation of P before its call
> >>>>>>>>>>> to H is emulated.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> When you know that H simply implements the above algorithm
> >>>>>>>>>> there is no need to see its source code. I am reserving the
> >>>>>>>>>> publication of the 5 pages of the source code of the halt
> >>>>>>>>>> decider for journal publication.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Your H is not a pure function as it behaves differently
> >>>>>>>>> depending on what is invoking it (it returns a decision
> >>>>>>>>> answer to main() but not to P()) and it has side effects
> >>>>>>>>> (aborting a simulation).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Finally a critique that has a reasonable basis.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When I transformed H into a pure function of its inputs it
> >>>>>>>> always has the same behavior no matter how it is invoked.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The x86 emulation of P is aborted before P invokes H.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope. Preventing a call to H is equivalent to H behaving
> >>>>>>> differently for same inputs. Aborting a simulation is a side
> >>>>>>> effect: pure functions do not have side effects.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In other words you are saying that a halt decider is simply not
> >>>>>> allowed to report when it correctly detects that it is being
> >>>>>> called in infinitely recursive simulation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I keep telling you this: the infinite recursion is NOT present
> >>>>> when using a valid halt decider: your H is NOT a valid halt
> >>>>> decider.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Simulation is an erroneous approach as a simulating halt decider
> >>>>> can not answer in finite time for a non-halting input as there
> >>>>> is no proven general solution for detecting non-halting
> >>>>> behaviour.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> IN OTHER WORDS THOROUGH LACK OF TECHNICAL COMPETANCE OR
> >>>> DISHONESTLY YOU DENY THIS VERIFIABLE FACT:
> >>>>
> >>>> The correct and complete x86 emulation of its input by H(P,P)
> >>>> would never reach the "ret" instruction of P because both H and
> >>>> P would remain stuck in infinitely nested emulation.
> >>>
> >>> For [Strachey 1965] (and the proofs based on it) H is NOT a
> >>> simulating halt decider so there is no infinite recursion as there
> >>> is no emulation.
> >>>
> >>> Valid halt deciders ANALYSE P, they do not EMULATE P.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> I provide a halt decider H that gets the right answer and your
> >> rebuttal is that H does not get the right answer because there is
> >> another different halt decider named H1 that gets the wrong
> >> answer.
> >
> > Your H also gets the wrong answer:
> >
> > void Px(u32 x)
> > {
> > H(x, x);
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> > Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
> > }
> >
> > ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50 push eax
> > ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427] 6827040000 push 00000427
> > ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff call 00000476
> > Input_Halts = 0
> > ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d pop ebp
> > ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret
> > Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
> >
> > It gets the answer wrong, i.e. input has not been decided correctly.
> > QED.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> Yet you only have dogma and no supporting reasoning.
>
> The reason that you only have dogma and no supporting reasoning is
> that tautologies such as this one have no correct rebuttal in the
> universe:
>
> The ordinary semantics of standard C and the conventional x86
> language are the entire semantics required to conclusively prove that
> H(P,P) does correctly predict that its correct and complete x86
> emulation of its input would never reach the "ret" instruction (final
> state) of this input thus never halts.
No halting decider (including yours) can return a correct answer of
non-halting for the general case as there is no proven method for
detecting non-halting behaviour for the general case. Feel free to
prove me wrong by publishing the source code of your magical non-halting
detection algorithm.
The more obvious problem with your halting decider is that it cannot
even return a correct answer of halting for a program that can be
trivially shown to halt:
void Px(u32 x)
{
H(x, x);
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
}
...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50 push eax
...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427] 6827040000 push 00000427
---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff call 00000476
Input_Halts = 0
...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d pop ebp
...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret
Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
It gets the answer wrong, i.e. input has not been decided correctly.
QED.
/Flibble
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-21 21:38 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-21 22:52 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-21 22:10 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-21 23:28 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-06-22 05:52 +0200
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 00:55 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 07:16 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 05:45 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 07:53 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 09:55 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 19:05 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 18:39 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:22 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:30 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:56 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:03 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:19 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:33 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:49 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-22 16:50 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 12:58 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 19:11 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:00 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:25 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:34 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:05 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 01:19 -0700
Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 13:14 -0500
Re: Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 11:26 -0700
Re: Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 19:00 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-23 23:44 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 20:38 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 00:53 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 08:07 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 09:18 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 06:34 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 09:32 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 12:07 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 10:50 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 09:09 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 11:32 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 12:46 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 11:52 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 15:55 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 10:29 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 12:42 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 12:34 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 15:20 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 16:00 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 20:42 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 13:25 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 16:59 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 23:16 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 17:25 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 16:58 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 19:12 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 21:56 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 21:50 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 23:59 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 21:01 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 23:33 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 22:09 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 00:24 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 00:32 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 09:28 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 10:03 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 16:09 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 10:19 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 16:21 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 10:54 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 16:59 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:06 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 17:25 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:32 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:12 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:20 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:33 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 13:03 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-06-25 18:31 +0200
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:40 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 12:59 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 09:39 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 00:55 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 20:07 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 02:16 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 20:36 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-26 14:40 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 19:57 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 21:42 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 15:53 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 20:58 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 03:03 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 05:31 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 12:15 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 11:27 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:00 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 14:11 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:26 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 14:37 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:43 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 14:54 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 21:15 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 15:37 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 21:40 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 15:42 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-26 15:09 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-26 14:56 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:01 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 03:14 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 05:42 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 13:58 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 16:18 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-22 11:11 -0600
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 13:10 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-22 16:10 -0600
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 17:34 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 17:37 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-23 05:20 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 13:03 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 20:31 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 15:27 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 22:20 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 16:41 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 22:49 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 16:58 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-23 00:01 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 18:29 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 14:53 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 17:22 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 15:48 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 18:11 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:02 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:16 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:21 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:37 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:44 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:15 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:22 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:42 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:52 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 19:23 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:46 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 19:48 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 01:28 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:54 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 13:52 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-24 13:05 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 15:27 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 04:56 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 09:10 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 15:53 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 09:19 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:29 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 10:21 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 12:52 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 11:58 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:15 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:18 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 16:11 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:15 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-25 20:24 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 12:33 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:49 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 17:35 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 00:28 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 20:34 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 19:54 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 19:55 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 19:56 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 19:57 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:39 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 19:21 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 00:42 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 23:23 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 17:58 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 22:00 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:52 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:32 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:37 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:48 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:55 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:05 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:20 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:32 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-23 05:13 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-06-23 17:28 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 11:42 -0500
Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 12:44 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:14 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:29 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:36 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:41 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:45 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:18 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:34 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:55 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 23:41 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 00:13 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 00:19 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 07:20 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-23 20:41 +0100
Software engineers [ not Flibble ] can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 14:56 -0500
Re: Software engineers [ not Flibble ] can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-23 20:59 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 16:55 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 20:38 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 21:59 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 21:10 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 22:29 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ nitwit rebuttals ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 15:47 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ nitwit rebuttals ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 22:13 +0100
csiph-web