Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #166780
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) |
| Message-ID | <20220715164900.00006bca@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <F6SdnTz0ef3dkEz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715130620.0000483f@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <esudnY0OB8EN6kz_nZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> <20220715153211.00005430@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <JeidnSoS1rskH0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-07-15 16:49 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:07:36 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 9:32 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 09:19:59 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/15/2022 7:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 01:46:23 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/15/2022 1:23 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 17:41:06 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/14/2022 5:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 16:02:35 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/14/2022 3:22 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:02:21 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2022 2:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 14:19:38 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is an explanation of a key new insight into the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem provided in the language of software
> >>>>>>>>>>>> engineering. Technical computer science terms are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> explained using software engineering terms. No knowledge
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of the halting problem is required.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is based on fully operational software executed in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> x86utm operating system. The x86utm operating system
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (based on an excellent open source x86 emulator) was
> >>>>>>>>>>>> created to study the details of the halting problem proof
> >>>>>>>>>>>> counter-examples at the much higher level of abstraction
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of C/x86.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
> >>>>>>>>>>>> int H(ptr p, ptr i); // simulating halt decider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> >>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H(P,P) simulates its input
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we can see that: (1) Function H() is called from P().
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (2) With the same arguments to H().
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (3) With no instructions in P preceding its invocation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The above shows that the simulated P cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally. Because H can see the same (1)(2)(3)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that we see H aborts its simulation of P and rejects P as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is the problem of determining, from a description of an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> program will finish running, or continue to run forever.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> solve the halting problem for all possible program- input
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pairs cannot exist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> H and P implement the exact pathological relationship to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> each other as described above. Because H(P,P) does handle
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this case the above halting problem undecidable input
> >>>>>>>>>>>> template has been refuted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *When this halt deciding principle understood to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> correct* 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Then (by logical necessity) this implements that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> principle* Every simulating halt decider that correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> simulates its input until it correctly predicts that this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would never terminate normally, correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rejects this input as non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *H is a Pure function*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> thus implements a *Computable function*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thus H is Turing computable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You forgot to mention infinite recursion which I suppose
> >>>>>>>>>>> is progress.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I have proved that H(P,P) == 0 is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I have shown that H/P does implement the HP's "impossible
> >>>>>>>>>> input" template.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore I have refuted all of the halting problem proofs
> >>>>>>>>>> that rely on this template.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Equating pathological input with non-halting is erroneous:
> >>>>>>>>> you are only doing that because your broken solution treats
> >>>>>>>>> it as "infinite recursion". There is no recursion in
> >>>>>>>>> [Strachey 1965] and the HP proofs based on it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There is no recursion in any of the conventional proofs only
> >>>>>>>> because no one ever previously bothered to fully examine how
> >>>>>>>> a simulating halt decider would address these otherwise
> >>>>>>>> "impossible" inputs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have shown that a simulating halt decider needn't be
> >>>>>>> recursive in nature:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You sure do make it easy to review your work.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "When the simulator detects the call to H in P it forks
> >>>>>> the simulation into a non-halting branch"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is an infinite set of cases where this overly simplistic
> >>>>>> criteria gets the wrong answer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is neither an honest review or any kind of rebuttal: I have
> >>>>> told you before: assertions made without evidence can be
> >>>>> dismissed without evidence.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you claim there are an infinite number of cases where it gets
> >>>>> the wrong answer then it shouldn't be too hard for to provide
> >>>>> ONE case backing up your claim.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>> Sure:
> >>>>
> >>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>> {
> >>>> static int count = 3;
> >>>> count--;
> >>>> if (!count) goto exit;
> >>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>> if (Halt_Status)
> >>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>> exit:
> >>>> return;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> int main()
> >>>> {
> >>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> >>>> }
> >>>
> >>> Nope; you seem to have forgotten that my decider is not recursive
> >>> in nature: my decider will correctly determine that that input is
> >>> pathological so will signal an exception.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> The above terminates normally so your decider gets the wrong
> >> answer.
> >
> > It is a pathological input so neither halts nor doesn't halt:
> > pathological input is INVALID so the correct "answer" is to signal
> > an exception.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> So you don't know how static variables work?
> I am not surprised.
>
>
> void P(ptr x)
> {
> static int count = 0;
> if (count++ >= 2) goto exit;
> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> exit:
> return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P,P));
> }
>
> _Pm()
> [0000141e](01) 55 push ebp
> [0000141f](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001421](03) 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> [00001424](05) a100000000 mov eax,[00000000]
> [00001429](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> [0000142c](06) 8b0d00000000 mov ecx,[00000000]
> [00001432](03) 83c101 add ecx,+01
> [00001435](06) 890d00000000 mov [00000000],ecx
> [0000143b](04) 837dfc02 cmp dword [ebp-04],+02
> [0000143f](02) 7c02 jl 00001443
> [00001441](02) eb1b jmp 0000145e
> [00001443](03) 8b5508 mov edx,[ebp+08]
> [00001446](01) 52 push edx
> [00001447](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [0000144a](01) 50 push eax
> [0000144b](05) e8defcffff call 0000112e
> [00001450](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00001453](03) 8945f8 mov [ebp-08],eax
> [00001456](04) 837df800 cmp dword [ebp-08],+00
> [0000145a](02) 7402 jz 0000145e
> [0000145c](02) ebfe jmp 0000145c
> [0000145e](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> [00001460](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00001461](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0068) [00001461]
>
> _main()
> [0000146e](01) 55 push ebp
> [0000146f](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001471](05) 681e140000 push 0000141e
> [00001476](05) 681e140000 push 0000141e
> [0000147b](05) e8aefcffff call 0000112e
> [00001480](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00001483](01) 50 push eax
> [00001484](05) 685f050000 push 0000055f
> [00001489](05) e820f1ffff call 000005ae
> [0000148e](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00001491](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> [00001493](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00001494](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0039) [00001494]
>
> machine stack stack machine assembly
> address address data code language
> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> [0000146e][00102462][00000000] 55 push ebp
> [0000146f][00102462][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001471][0010245e][0000141e] 681e140000 push 0000141e
> [00001476][0010245a][0000141e] 681e140000 push 0000141e
> [0000147b][00102456][00001480] e8aefcffff call 0000112e
>
> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:11250e
> Address_of_H:112e
> [0000141e][001124fa][001124fe] 55 push ebp
> [0000141f][001124fa][001124fe] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001421][001124f2][90909090] 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> [00001424][001124f2][90909090] a100000000 mov eax,[00000000]
> [00001429][001124f2][90909090] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> [0000142c][001124f2][90909090] 8b0d00000000 mov ecx,[00000000]
> [00001432][001124f2][90909090] 83c101 add ecx,+01
> [00001435][001124f2][90909090] 890d00000000 mov [00000000],ecx
> [0000143b][001124f2][90909090] 837dfc02 cmp dword [ebp-04],+02
> [0000143f][001124f2][90909090] 7c02 jl 00001443
> [00001441][001124f2][90909090] eb1b jmp 0000145e
> [0000145e][001124fa][001124fe] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> [00001460][001124fe][00001217] 5d pop ebp
> [00001461][00112502][0000141e] c3 ret
> H: End Simulation Input Terminated Normally
>
> [00001480][00102462][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00001483][0010245e][00000001] 50 push eax
> [00001484][0010245a][0000055f] 685f050000 push 0000055f
> [00001489][0010245a][0000055f] e820f1ffff call 000005ae
> Input_Halts = 1
> [0000148e][00102462][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00001491][00102462][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> [00001493][00102466][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> [00001494][0010246a][00000000] c3 ret
> Number of Instructions Executed(1317) == 20 Pages
For this particular stack trace I notice that the function symbol at
the top of it is Pm not P which suggests to me one of two things:
1) It is not the actual trace of the input you posted with it,
or
2) There is something wrong with the compiler/linker you are using and
it is not initializing static variables correctly resulting in an early
termination.
If (1) is correct then you are a dishonest trolling fucktard; if (2) is
correct then I suggest you resolve that issue rather than assuming
incompetence in your honest reviewers.
/Flibble
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 14:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 20:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 15:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 21:22 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 23:30 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:41 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 07:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 01:46 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 07:48 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 13:06 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 15:32 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:07 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:18 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:27 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:29 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:58 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 17:03 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:08 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:46 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:04 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:17 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:46 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:31 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:41 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:04 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:11 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:28 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:33 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:32 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Big Dick <Big.Dick@olcott.crap> - 2022-07-15 21:22 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:38 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:56 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 21:05 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:36 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 21:47 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 22:12 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 21:27 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 22:39 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 00:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 06:36 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 08:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 10:15 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 10:16 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 08:33 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:21 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 13:27 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 21:53 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:09 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:32 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:32 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:06 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:16 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:24 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:32 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:35 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:39 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:45 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:34 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 20:43 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:46 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:45 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 15:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:37 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 15:44 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:54 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:05 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:07 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:08 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:18 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:19 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:25 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 17:15 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-14 17:24 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 19:33 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:53 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 00:01 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 07:56 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:22 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 17:51 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 20:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:29 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:12 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:17 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Big Dick <bigdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 22:42 +0100
csiph-web