Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, comp.software-eng |
| Subject | Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering |
| Message-ID | <20220703152751.00001f74@reddwarf.jmc> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <3O2dnX_5sOHXDF3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <20220702194448.00005117@reddwarf.jmc> <S-mdnfRt7a-LJV3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <20220702230537.00001259@reddwarf.jmc> <avudncmA4ZtwX13_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corp |
| Date | 2022-07-03 15:27 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 17:13:01 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2022 5:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 16:26:45 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/2/2022 1:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 13:41:14 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/2/2022 1:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 12:30:03 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/2/2022 12:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 12:15:58 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/2/2022 12:10 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 11:42:48 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2022 11:26 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 10:34:34 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This much more concise version of my paper focuses on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> actual execution of three fully operational examples.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> H0 correctly determines that Infinite_Loop() never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>> H correctly determines that Infinite_Recursion() never
> >>>>>>>>>>>> halts H correctly determines that P() never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> if (H(x, x))
> >>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> >>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As shown below the above P and H have the required
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (halting problem) pathological relationship to each
> >>>>>>>>>>>> other:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I really need software engineers to verify that H does
> >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly predict that its complete and correct x86
> >>>>>>>>>>>> emulation of its input would never reach the "ret"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
> >>>>>>>>>>>> engineering*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> As can be seen above Olcott's H decides that Px does not
> >>>>>>>>>>> halt but it is obvious that Px should always halt if H is
> >>>>>>>>>>> a valid halt decider that always returns a decision to its
> >>>>>>>>>>> caller (Px). Olcott's H does not return a decision to its
> >>>>>>>>>>> caller (Px) and is thus invalid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Your false assumptions are directly contradicted by the
> >>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> *x86 Instruction Set Reference* https://c9x.me/x86/
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>> H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _Px()
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001192](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001193](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001195](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001198](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001199](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>> [0000119c](01) 51 push ecx
> >>>>>>>>>> [0000119d](05) e8d0fdffff call 00000f72
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011a2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011a5](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011a6](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [000011a6]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _main()
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011d2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011d3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011d5](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011da](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011df](05) e88efdffff call 00000f72
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011e4](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011e7](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011e8](05) 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011ed](05) e800f3ffff call 000004f2
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011f2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011f5](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011f7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011f8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0039) [000011f8]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> >>>>>>>>>> address address data code language
> >>>>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== =========
> >>>>>>>>>> ============= [000011d2][00101f7f][00000000] 55
> >>>>>>>>>> push ebp [000011d3][00101f7f][00000000] 8bec mov
> >>>>>>>>>> ebp,esp [000011d5][00101f7b][00001192] 6892110000 push
> >>>>>>>>>> 00001192 [000011da][00101f77][00001192] 6892110000 push
> >>>>>>>>>> 00001192 [000011df][00101f73][000011e4] e88efdffff call
> >>>>>>>>>> 00000f72
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:11202b
> >>>>>>>>>> Address_of_H:f72
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001192][00112017][0011201b] 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001193][00112017][0011201b] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001195][00112017][0011201b] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001198][00112013][00001192] 50 push eax //
> >>>>>>>>>> push Px [00001199][00112013][00001192] 8b4d08 mov
> >>>>>>>>>> ecx,[ebp+08] [0000119c][0011200f][00001192] 51 push
> >>>>>>>>>> ecx // push Px [0000119d][0011200b][000011a2]
> >>>>>>>>>> e8d0fdffff call 00000f72 // call H(Px,Px) 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 Px (see above)
> >>>>>>>>>> to determine: (a) Px is calling H with the same arguments
> >>>>>>>>>> that H was called with. (b) No instructions in Px could
> >>>>>>>>>> possibly escape this otherwise infinitely recursive
> >>>>>>>>>> emulation. (c) H aborts its emulation of Px before its call
> >>>>>>>>>> to H is emulated.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011e4][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011e7][00101f7b][00000000] 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011e8][00101f77][000004a3] 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011ed][00101f77][000004a3] e800f3ffff call 000004f2
> >>>>>>>>>> Input_Halts = 0
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011f2][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011f5][00101f7f][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011f7][00101f83][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [000011f8][00101f87][00000000] c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(880) == 13 Pages
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If H wasn't a simulation-based halting decider then Px()
> >>>>>>>>> would always halt; the infinite recursion is a
> >>>>>>>>> manifestation of your invalid simulation-based halting
> >>>>>>>>> decider. There is no recursion in [Strachey 1965].
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In other words you are rejecting the concept of a simulating
> >>>>>>>> halt decider even though I conclusively proved that it does
> >>>>>>>> correctly determine the halt status of: (see my new paper)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No I am rejecting your simulating halt decider as it gets the
> >>>>>>> answer wrong for Px() which is not a pathological input. Px()
> >>>>>>> halts.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just proved that H(Px,Px) does correctly predict that its
> >>>>>> complete and correct x86 emulation of its input would never
> >>>>>> reach the "ret" instruction of this input because of the
> >>>>>> pathological relationship between H and Px.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong. Px() is not a pathological input as defined by the
> >>>>> halting problem and [Strachey 1965] as it does not try to do
> >>>>> the opposite of what H decides.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Your lack of comprehension does not actually count as any
> >>>> rebuttal at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>> {
> >>>> if (H(x, x))
> >>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>> return;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> int main()
> >>>> {
> >>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> As shown below the above P and H have the required (halting
> >>>> problem) pathological relationship to each other:
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> P does but Px does not. I am talking about Px not P.
> >>>
> >>> 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)
> >>>
> >>> As can be seen above Olcott's H decides that Px does not halt but
> >>> it is obvious that Px should always halt if H is a valid halt
> >>> decider that always returns a decision to its caller (Px).
> >>> Olcott's H does not return a decision to its caller (Px) and is
> >>> thus invalid.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> Your false assumptions are directly contradicted by the semantics
> >> of the x86 programming language.
> >>
> >> *x86 Instruction Set Reference* https://c9x.me/x86/
> >>
> >> void Px(u32 x)
> >> {
> >> H(x, x);
> >> return;
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
> >> }
> >>
> >> _Px()
> >> [00001192](01) 55 push ebp
> >> [00001193](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >> [00001195](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >> [00001198](01) 50 push eax
> >> [00001199](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >> [0000119c](01) 51 push ecx
> >> [0000119d](05) e8d0fdffff call 00000f72
> >> [000011a2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >> [000011a5](01) 5d pop ebp
> >> [000011a6](01) c3 ret
> >> Size in bytes:(0021) [000011a6]
> >>
> >> _main()
> >> [000011d2](01) 55 push ebp
> >> [000011d3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >> [000011d5](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> >> [000011da](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> >> [000011df](05) e88efdffff call 00000f72
> >> [000011e4](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >> [000011e7](01) 50 push eax
> >> [000011e8](05) 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> >> [000011ed](05) e800f3ffff call 000004f2
> >> [000011f2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >> [000011f5](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >> [000011f7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >> [000011f8](01) c3 ret
> >> Size in bytes:(0039) [000011f8]
> >>
> >> machine stack stack machine assembly
> >> address address data code language
> >> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> >> [000011d2][00101f7f][00000000] 55 push ebp
> >> [000011d3][00101f7f][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >> [000011d5][00101f7b][00001192] 6892110000 push 00001192
> >> [000011da][00101f77][00001192] 6892110000 push 00001192
> >> [000011df][00101f73][000011e4] e88efdffff call 00000f72
> >>
> >> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:11202b
> >> Address_of_H:f72
> >> [00001192][00112017][0011201b] 55 push ebp
> >> [00001193][00112017][0011201b] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >> [00001195][00112017][0011201b] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >> [00001198][00112013][00001192] 50 push eax // push Px
> >> [00001199][00112013][00001192] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >> [0000119c][0011200f][00001192] 51 push ecx // push Px
> >> [0000119d][0011200b][000011a2] e8d0fdffff call 00000f72 // call
> >> H(Px,Px) 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 Px (see above) to determine:
> >> (a) Px is calling H with the same arguments that H was called with.
> >> (b) No instructions in Px could possibly escape this otherwise
> >> infinitely recursive emulation.
> >> (c) H aborts its emulation of Px before its call to H is emulated.
> >>
> >> [000011e4][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >> [000011e7][00101f7b][00000000] 50 push eax
> >> [000011e8][00101f77][000004a3] 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> >> [000011ed][00101f77][000004a3] e800f3ffff call 000004f2
> >> Input_Halts = 0
> >> [000011f2][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >> [000011f5][00101f7f][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >> [000011f7][00101f83][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> >> [000011f8][00101f87][00000000] c3 ret
> >> Number of Instructions Executed(880) == 13 Pages
> >
> > I see you wish to pointlessly go around in circles. Oh well.
> >
> > Px() is not a pathological input as defined by the halting
> > problem and [Strachey 1965] as it does not try to do the opposite of
> > what H decides.
> >
> > Px() always halts so your H gets the answer wrong.
> >
> > /Flibble
>
> I found that my reply did not make it to all the groups so I posted
> it again.
>
> *This general principle refutes conventional halting problem proofs*
> Every simulating halt decider that correctly simulates its input
> until it correctly predicts that this simulated input would never
> reach its final state, correctly rejects this input as non-halting.
Your H does not "correctly predict" that Px() does reach its final
state and so should accept the input as halting.
/Flibble
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 10:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-02 09:20 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 11:32 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 17:26 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 11:42 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 18:10 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 12:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 18:26 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 12:30 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 19:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 13:41 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 19:44 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 16:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 23:05 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 17:13 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 15:27 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 09:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 16:21 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 10:30 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 16:45 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 10:48 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 16:51 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 11:05 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 17:07 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 12:35 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 14:51 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-03 16:21 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 16:10 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 19:44 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-04 07:45 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-04 09:36 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 11:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-04 11:42 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 14:17 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 14:21 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 18:08 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 11:50 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 14:31 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 16:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 18:37 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-05 22:18 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-07-05 14:24 -0600
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 15:42 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-05 19:29 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-07-06 00:53 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 19:01 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 21:00 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 23:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 13:58 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-06 16:13 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 12:19 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-07 14:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 13:54 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-07 16:08 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 17:36 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-07 20:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 21:35 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-07 23:48 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 23:09 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-08 07:54 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-08 10:59 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-08 13:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-08 17:48 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-09 08:16 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 10:22 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-09 13:40 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-09 15:06 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-09 14:18 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-07 22:16 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 19:50 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-04 15:05 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-05 11:53 +0300
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 07:59 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 08:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-05 19:31 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-03 13:34 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-02 19:29 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-02 14:42 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-02 14:40 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 11:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-12 19:06 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Henrietta Stinkbottom <henri@galabbogosutionallity.net> - 2022-07-02 11:52 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 09:56 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 22:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 07:07 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-13 08:02 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 11:07 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-13 11:03 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 14:37 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 13:47 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 15:51 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 14:11 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 19:10 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 21:29 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 02:20 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 10:25 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:31 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 11:48 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:25 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 19:29 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-14 04:42 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 14:56 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 19:20 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-15 05:34 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:35 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-15 09:17 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 11:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-16 04:23 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 08:32 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 10:24 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-07-16 16:54 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 12:40 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-07-16 20:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Mike fails to comprehend) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 15:12 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Mike fails to comprehend) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 18:05 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Mike fails to comprehend) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 18:16 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [thanks Mike] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-17 12:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [thanks Mike] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 12:43 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 13:56 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 19:18 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 20:38 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 20:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [thanks Mike] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-16 21:40 -0500
csiph-web