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 | <20220703162148.00001389@reddwarf.jmc> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <S-mdnfRt7a-LJV3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <20220702230537.00001259@reddwarf.jmc> <avudncmA4ZtwX13_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <20220703152751.00001f74@reddwarf.jmc> <Y72dndpURKjqM1z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corp |
| Date | 2022-07-03 16:21 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 09:57:57 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/3/2022 9:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> (x86 Instruction Set Reference* https://c9x.me/x86/
>
> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves that the above
> code is correct. People that disagree with verified facts are either
> incompetent or liars. Since you cannot even understand that the
> return statement in Px is unreachable code, (to every simulating halt
> decider H) you would be incompetent.
Not EVERY simulating halt decider, only YOURS gets the answer wrong.
Px() halts.
/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