Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #166801
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++, comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] |
| Message-ID | <20220715203358.00004649@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <XqqdnZWta5oKL0z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715194148.00005b14@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <y6qdnTUA2dGqJ0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715201115.000077ac@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <ppidncG2cMtZIkz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-07-15 20:33 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:28:03 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:04:22 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/15/2022 1:41 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:31:50 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/15/2022 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/15/2022 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is directly disobeying the actual behavior specified by the
> >>>>> actual input by returning a value to a function that called it
> >>>>> in infinite recursion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Even if we did accept that your pathological self-reference
> >>>> detector is valid it is only a copycat of my idea and it provides
> >>>> a weaker result. It answers: I don't know and mine answers:
> >>>> non-halting.
> >>>
> >>> I could trivially change my decider to return a decision of
> >>> non-halting instead of signaling an exception if I believed such a
> >>> mapping was correct, but I don't, so I won't.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Because you did not even copycat my criteria correctly your H
> >>>> gets the wrong answer on this input.
> >>>>
> >>>> int add(int N)
> >>>> {
> >>>> return N + 3;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> void Pc(ptr x)
> >>>> {
> >>>> H(add, (ptr)7);
> >>>> return;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> int main()
> >>>> {
> >>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(Pc,Pc));
> >>>> }
> >>>
> >>> My decider would correctly answer that Pc halts: passing a
> >>> different input to H would be equivalent to the call to H from
> >>> main(), i.e. it would be a function call rather than a fork
> >>> detection: forks only happen if H is called with the same input
> >>> more than once.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt
> >>
> >> You did not bother to copycat my criteria: "with the same input"
> >> therefore your specification fails the above test.
> >
> > The only thing my decider and your decider have in common is that
> > they are both simulating halt deciders.
> >
> >>
> >> 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).
> >>
> >> As already shown before you also did not bother to copycat my
> >> criteria (3) which provides another escape route from
> >> non-termination.
> >>
> >> When you add these crriteria I insist on a reference to my
> >> copyright notice for these criteria.
> >>
> >> *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
> >>
> >
> > No. You cannot copyright the idea of a simulating halt decider; you
> > only have a copyright for your broken simulating halt decider.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> *I have a copyright on these words and every precise paraphrase*
>
> 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).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrasing_of_copyrighted_material
>
> You are expressing using (1)
> "When the simulator detects the call to H in P"
> https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt
>
> have referred to (2) after the fact when I pointed out that it was
> missing from your spec
>
> On 7/15/2022 1:41 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > ... if H is called with the same input more than once.
>
> and have not bothered to correct the (false positive) error of your
> specification by failing to include (3).
>
> You may use the above three criteria in your spec only if you post my
> copyright notice: Copyright 2022 PL Olcott
>
> After you fully copycat my criteria your pathological reference
> detector might be valid. You may not copycat this criteria without my
> copyright notice.
>
> *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 cannot copyright the idea of a simulating halt decider and I have
not copied your words: your approach and my approach are quite
different; my approach works whilst your approach fails to decide the
following correctly:
void Px(void (*x)())
{
(void) H(x, x);
return;
}
Px always halts and my approach returns a correct decision of halting
whilst your approach returns an incorrect decision of non-halting
proving that our approaches are fundamentally different.
/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