Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #166788
| 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 | <20220715184619.00003607@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <20220715170340.00001838@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <aZudnWdIoajRAEz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715180822.000061f6@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <20220715182802.0000170e@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <2KidnQBTRtnJO0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-07-15 18:46 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:39:31 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 12:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 18:08:22 +0100
> > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:00:59 -0500
> >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 7/15/2022 11:03 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:58:14 -0500
> >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 7/15/2022 10:49 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>> 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:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I already had a P so I renamed it to Pm so it would not disturb
> >>>>> my existing code. When I changed all the Pm references to your
> >>>>> name I forgot one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then I suggest you check the output of compilation/linking is
> >>>> actually initializing static variables correctly. Are you even
> >>>> using a linker or are you just executing an object file? Static
> >>>> data normally goes into a separate data segment during the
> >>>> linking process.
> >>>>
> >>>> /Flibble
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I haven't used static data in such a long time that I forgot the
> >>> compiler does not allocate any space for static variables unless
> >>> they have been initialized to a non-zero value.
> >>>
> >>> void Pm(u32 x)
> >>> {
> >>> static int count = 0x777;
> >>> if (count++ > 0x777) goto exit;
> >>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>> if (Halt_Status)
> >>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>> exit:
> >>> return;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> int main()
> >>> {
> >>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Pm, (u32)Pm));
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _Pm()
> >>> [00000a1a](01) 55 push ebp
> >>> [00000a1b](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>> [00000a1d](03) 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> >>> [00000a20](05) a107030000 mov eax,[00000307]
> >>> [00000a25](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> >>> [00000a28](06) 8b0d07030000 mov ecx,[00000307]
> >>> [00000a2e](03) 83c101 add ecx,+01
> >>> [00000a31](06) 890d07030000 mov [00000307],ecx
> >>> [00000a37](07) 817dfc77070000 cmp dword [ebp-04],00000777
> >>> [00000a3e](02) 7e02 jng 00000a42
> >>> [00000a40](02) eb1b jmp 00000a5d
> >>> [00000a42](03) 8b5508 mov edx,[ebp+08]
> >>> [00000a45](01) 52 push edx
> >>> [00000a46](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>> [00000a49](01) 50 push eax
> >>> [00000a4a](05) e8ebfdffff call 0000083a // call H
> >>> [00000a4f](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>> [00000a52](03) 8945f8 mov [ebp-08],eax
> >>> [00000a55](04) 837df800 cmp dword [ebp-08],+00
> >>> [00000a59](02) 7402 jz 00000a5d
> >>> [00000a5b](02) ebfe jmp 00000a5b
> >>> [00000a5d](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> >>> [00000a5f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>> [00000a60](01) c3 ret
> >>> Size in bytes:(0071) [00000a60]
> >>>
> >>> _main()
> >>> [00000a6a](01) 55 push ebp
> >>> [00000a6b](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>> [00000a6d](05) 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a // push address of P
> >>> [00000a72](05) 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a // push address of P
> >>> [00000a77](05) e8befdffff call 0000083a // call H
> >>> [00000a7c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>> [00000a7f](01) 50 push eax
> >>> [00000a80](05) 680b030000 push 0000030b
> >>> [00000a85](05) e8d0f8ffff call 0000035a
> >>> [00000a8a](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>> [00000a8d](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>> [00000a8f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>> [00000a90](01) c3 ret
> >>> Size in bytes:(0039) [00000a90]
> >>>
> >>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> >>> address address data code language
> >>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> >>> ...[00000a6a][0010137b][00000000] 55 push ebp
> >>> ...[00000a6b][0010137b][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>> ...[00000a6d][00101377][00000a1a] 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a
> >>> ...[00000a72][00101373][00000a1a] 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a
> >>> ...[00000a77][0010136f][00000a7c] e8befdffff call 0000083a
> >>> New slave_stack at:201427
> >>>
> >>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored
> >>> at:21142f ...[00000a1a][0021141b][0021141f] 55 push
> >>> ebp ...[00000a1b][0021141b][0021141f] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>> ...[00000a1d][00211413][90909090] 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> >>> ...[00000a20][00211413][90909090] a107030000 mov
> >>> eax,[00000307] ...[00000a25][00211413][90909090] 8945fc
> >>> mov [ebp-04],eax ...[00000a28][00211413][90909090] 8b0d07030000
> >>> mov ecx,[00000307] ...[00000a2e][00211413][90909090] 83c101
> >>> add ecx,+01 ...[00000a31][00211413][90909090] 890d07030000
> >>> mov [00000307],ecx ...[00000a37][00211413][90909090]
> >>> 817dfc77070000 cmp dword [ebp-04],00000777
> >>> ...[00000a3e][00211413][90909090] 7e02 jng 00000a42
> >>> ...[00000a42][00211413][90909090] 8b5508 mov edx,[ebp+08]
> >>> ...[00000a45][0021140f][00000a1a] 52 push edx //
> >>> push address of P
> >>> ...[00000a46][0021140f][00000a1a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>> ...[00000a49][0021140b][00000a1a] 50 push eax //
> >>> push address of P
> >>> ...[00000a4a][00211407][00000a4f] e8ebfdffff call 0000083a //
> >>> call H New slave_stack at:24be4f
> >>> ...[00000a1a][0025be43][0025be47] 55 push ebp
> >>> ...[00000a1b][0025be43][0025be47] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>> ...[00000a1d][0025be3b][90909090] 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> >>> ...[00000a20][0025be3b][90909090] a107030000 mov
> >>> eax,[00000307] ...[00000a25][0025be3b][90909090] 8945fc
> >>> mov [ebp-04],eax ...[00000a28][0025be3b][90909090] 8b0d07030000
> >>> mov ecx,[00000307] ...[00000a2e][0025be3b][90909090] 83c101
> >>> add ecx,+01 ...[00000a31][0025be3b][90909090] 890d07030000
> >>> mov [00000307],ecx ...[00000a37][0025be3b][90909090]
> >>> 817dfc77070000 cmp dword [ebp-04],00000777
> >>> ...[00000a3e][0025be3b][90909090] 7e02 jng 00000a42
> >>> ...[00000a40][0025be3b][90909090] eb1b jmp 00000a5d //
> >>> jmp to exit
> >>> ...[00000a5d][0025be43][0025be47] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> >>> ...[00000a5f][0025be47][00000904] 5d pop ebp
> >>> ...[00000a60][0025be4b][00000a1a] c3 ret
> >>> ...[00000a7c][0010137b][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>> ...[00000a7f][00101377][00000001] 50 push eax
> >>> ...[00000a80][00101373][0000030b] 680b030000 push 0000030b
> >>> ---[00000a85][00101373][0000030b] e8d0f8ffff call 0000035a
> >>> Input_Halts = 1
> >>> ...[00000a8a][0010137b][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>> ...[00000a8d][0010137b][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>> ...[00000a8f][0010137f][00100000] 5d pop ebp
> >>> ...[00000a90][00101383][00000004] c3 ret
> >>> Number of Instructions Executed(27278)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Still seems wrong: post increment of the static variable should
> >> ensure that it does NOT goto exit but instead should call H which
> >> should presumably cause your "infinite recursion detected"
> >> bollocks to manifest.
> >
> > OK, I've looked at your assembly trace and it is recursing into Pm
> > from H and then halting but I am not sure what you are trying to
> > prove? Again [Strachey 1965] and associated proofs are not
> > recursive in nature.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> (1) H cannot correctly determine the halt status of the HP
> counter-examples unless H is a simulating halt decider.
>
> (2) The claim of the halting problem proofs is that no H in the
> universe can possibly correctly determine the halt status of its
> corresponding pathological input.
>
> (3) H(P,P) does correctly determine that its correponding
> pathological input would never halt.
>
> (4) It is ridiculously stupid of you to say that [Strachey 1965] does
> not specify infinitely recursive simulation when it is an easily
> verified fact that when Strachey T <is> a simulating halt decider
> that Strachey P <does> specify infinitely recursive simulation.
>
> It does not say this directly in [Strachey 1965] only because no one
> ever previously bothered to fully examine the effect of a simulating
> halt decider on the HP's pathological inputs.
I see I have to repeat myself yet again: a simulating halt decider
needn't be recursive in nature and I have sketched a design of such a
halt decider:
https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt
You are incorrect to claim an equivalence between pathological input
and non-halting.
/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