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 |
| Message-ID | <20220626195755.00003d10@reddwarf.jmc> (permalink) |
| References | (14 earlier) <87k094uwkw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IfWdnReH1e6kLCr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220626021629.0000783c@reddwarf.jmc> <z4Kdne4xZrmHJSr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <zK1uK.20102$Me2.11411@fx47.iad> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corp |
| Date | 2022-06-26 19:57 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 14:40:26 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> On 6/25/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 6/25/2022 8:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 20:07:04 -0500
> >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 6/25/2022 6:55 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Obviously.
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> He is just waffling. There is no conclusion, just a constant
> >>>> twisting and turning to find some why to persuade people that the
> >>>> wrong answer is the right one. He's being doing this for years
> >>>> with various degrees of obfuscation.
> >>>>
> >>>> H does not report the correct result for P(P) and PO is putting
> >>>> up anything he can think of to keep the discussion going. It
> >>>> should simply have stopped once he'd been clear that H(P,P) == 0
> >>>> is correct "even though P(P) halts" but the traces and the
> >>>> verbiage is keeping people keen.
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> When a student comes to me and says that her program to add 5
> >>>> and 6 gives 12, I don't, even for a moment, imagine that the
> >>>> laws of logic and mathematics are in doubt.
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> For what it's worth, I don't think there is any "dry run" going
> >>>> on here at all. PO decide years ago that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) would
> >>>> be 0 because he knew (correctly) that H could spot what would
> >>>> happen if H did not "intervene". Everything since then -- the
> >>>> "it only halt because...", the "it wouldn't halt if line 15 were
> >>>> commented out" and the rather less explicitly stated "H_Hat does
> >>>> not get to its ret instruction because a non top-level H aborts"
> >>>> are just the various attempt at after-the-fact justification.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree it's never quite so simple because PO is usually
> >>>> fractally wrong, so he's not correct about almost everything he
> >>>> says at almost every level. For example, at one level he now
> >>>> admits that a halt decider is impossible because H(X,Y) must
> >>>> report "on its input" and the call X(Y) is not an input! He did
> >>>> this to explain why H(P,P) is permitted to return 0 "even though
> >>>> P(P) halts", but it also makes it clear that what he one thought
> >>>> was that halting problem is not solvable.
> >>>
> >>> (a) and (b) are proven to be verified facts entirely on the basis
> >>> of the semantics of the x86 language. (Most people here do not
> >>> seem to "believe in" the semantics of the x86 language otherwise
> >>> they would have no basis to disagree).
> >>>
> >>> (a) The complete and correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P)
> >>> by H never reaches the "ret" instruction of P.
> >>>
> >>> (b) The direct execution of P(P) does reach its "ret" instruction.
> >>>
> >>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its inputs to an
> >>> accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that
> >>> is actually specified by these inputs.
> >>>
> >>> P(P) is provably not the actual behavior of the actual input.
> >> (a) is false as the reason the ret instruction is not reached is
> >> incorrect: the ret instruction should not be reached due to the
> >> infinite loop in P and not because you abort the simulation before
> >> the infinite loop is reached. Your H is incorrect in its
> >> assumption that P is pathological because it calls H.
> >>
> >> /Flibble
> >>
> >
> > For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
> > "pathological"
> > program P, called with some input, can pass its own source
> > and its input to
> > H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts P
> > will do. No H
> > can exist that handles this case.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >
> >
> > void P(u32 x)
> > {
> > if (H(x, x))
> > HERE: goto HERE;
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> > Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> > }
> >
> >
>
> The problem is that your "proof" of (a) is based on an "H" that ONLY
> does a complete and correct emulation of its input, before making a
> halting decision.
>
> Yes, for such an H, the P built on it will be non-halting, that that
> H can't report that fact, and in fact, NEVER reports that ANY
> non-halting input is non-halting. That makes it not a decider.
>
> When you fix that problem, by having your new H abort its processing,
> it is a DIFFERENT H than the one above. That difference matter, and
> you new H is incorrect to consider that its input P, built on it is
> the same as the P that was built on the other input H. You seem to be
> confused becaue they are both called H.
>
> You claim to be working under the intrepretaton of the C languge. The
> C language PROHIBITS the presence of two functions by the same name
> in one translation unit, or with global scope in the same program,
> sine there is no "H with static scope listed in the file for P, it
> MUST be a global scope H, and thus the only H that P can call is the
> one deciding on it, which if you claim your H (P,P) is returning 0,
> must be the one that aborts, and thus NOT the one that does the
> complete and correct emulation and gets stuck in the infinite
> recursion.
>
> It is also clear that you are lying about H doing a correct x86
> emulation of its input, because at the x86 level, the call to H
> should create an emulation of the x86 CODE of H, not reverting to
> some "functional equivalent" converting it to a notation that it is
> emulating P again. Maybe that just shows that YOU don't understand
> what x86 assembly code actually does. "Call H" does NOT do a
> emulataion at the x86 level, it runs an emulator that it should be
> tracing.
>
> THe fact that (b) shows the x86 assembly code actually does reach its
> "ret" instruction means you need to point out where the emulation of
> the input and the direct execution diverge, which is at the call H
> instruction, which the emulation DOES'T correctly process as pointed
> above, and thus your claim of a is shown to be a LIE.
If I reply to you Olcott will see your post. :)
/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