Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #166790
| 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 | <20220715190440.00001376@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <20220715180822.000061f6@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <20220715182802.0000170e@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <2KidnQBTRtnJO0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715184619.00003607@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <KbSdncHSDus_N0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-07-15 19:04 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:57:53 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 12:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> 19 When the simulator detects the call to H in P it forks the
> simulation 20 into a non-halting branch (returning 0 to P) and a
> halting branch 21 (returning 1 to P)
>
> Software engineers at the low end of technical competence may not
> fully comprehend the common knowledge that:
>
> Whenever a function is called in what is essentially infinite
> recursion this function cannot possibly correctly return any value to
> its caller. You don't seem to understand that.
Why are you so fucking obtuse? My forking simulating decider IS NOT
RECURSIVE. My decider when detecting a call to H will NOT call it
but will instead fork the simulation into two COPIES and continue with
the next instruction after the call *as if* the call was made and
returned halting to one copy and not-halting to the other. This is no
less valid than your method of detecting a call to H and
instead of calling it, aborting your simulation.
/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