Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem |
| Message-ID | <20221009193129.00006a85@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (21 earlier) <thv21i$h9v6$8@dont-email.me> <20221009190712.000022d3@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv2rd$16m6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <20221009192303.00007be7@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv3ro$h9v6$10@dont-email.me> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-10-09 19:31 +0100 |
On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 13:28:07 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2022 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 13:10:51 -0500
> > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/9/2022 1:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:57:05 -0500
> >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/9/2022 12:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:48:55 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/9/2022 12:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:22:57 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 12:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:14:39 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 12:10 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:00:46 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 11:49 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 11:46:10 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 11:39 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 10:48:51 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 10:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 09:32:54 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2022 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 10:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2022 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once one accepts the notion of a simulating
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider that continues to correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate its input until it correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines that the this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never stop running then the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional halting problem proofs are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refuted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that your decider DOESN'T simulate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until it CORRECT decides that the ACTUAL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input will never halts, but stops when a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT input is shown to not halt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *straw man*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An intentionally misrepresented proposition
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is set up because it is easier to defeat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than an opponent's real argument.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strawman deception try again using the exact
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words that I actually said.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't what I did, so you are just shown
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a LIAR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // P does the opposite of whatever H decides
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status) // if H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports that its input halts HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // P loops and never halts return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // else P halts }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are asserting that the simulation of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would eventually stop running on its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without being aborted by H?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, THAT is the strawman.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asserting that the CORRECT simulation of P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would eventually reach a final state,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You changed the words again*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are asserting that the simulation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would eventually stop running on its own without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being aborted by H?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's YOUR strawman.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you knew anything about logic you would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that this is a premise: *Once one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is not allowed to reject the premise. One is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only allowed to verify that the conclusion follows
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the premise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SHD can only refute halting problem proofs if it is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pure function;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it took me three full time months to convert H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a pure function. I merely apply the exact same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite recursion criteria that is used to compute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halt status of:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet I apply this criteria immediately before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive simulation actually occurs. When H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognizes that P is about to call H in recursive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation H aborts its simulation of P before its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first call to H is ever invoked.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your H is a pure function and H(P,P) returns 0 then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) called from P(P) would also return 0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sarcasm>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure because everyone knows that a function that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never invoked must still return a value in the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way we must be able to start the engine of a car that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no engine. </sarcasm>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) called from P(P) is the FIRST invocation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) so is invoked, i.e. main() calling P(P) instead
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of H(P,P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is not a halt decider as it gets the halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> decision wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Turing computable functions are not allowed to compute
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping of non-inputs or anything that cannot be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> encoded as a finite string. That you fail to understand
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this is not any rebuttal of what I have said.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If H is a pure function and H(P,P) returns 0 then if P(P)
> >>>>>>>>>>> is called from main() P(P) will halt which means H got the
> >>>>>>>>>>> halting decision wrong meaning H is not a halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You continue to fail to understand that Turing computable
> >>>>>>>>>> functions are not allowed to consider the behavior of
> >>>>>>>>>> non-inputs. That you fail to understand this is not any
> >>>>>>>>>> error on my part.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> English is ambiguous, lets try code instead:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> >>>>>>>>> P(P);
> >>>>>>>>> Output("P(P) halted ergo H(P, P) should have returned
> >>>>>>>>> 1"); }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Given the above it is obvious to all that H is not a halt
> >>>>>>>>> decider.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) by H is known
> >>>>>>>> to be the behavior that H must measure on the basis that the
> >>>>>>>> correct simulation of a machine description is known to
> >>>>>>>> provide the actual behavior of this machine description.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What you are saying rejects the notion of a UTM.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What I am saying is that programs are designed to be run
> >>>>>>> rather than just analyzed by a halt decider.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> P(P) halts does it not? i.e. the following PROGRAM halts:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> P(P);
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You claim that H is a pure function and that H(P,P) returns 0
> >>>>>>> ergo your H gets the halting decision wrong so is not a halt
> >>>>>>> decider.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> H1(P,P) specifies a different sequence of configurations than
> >>>>>> H(P,P) thus the value that H1 returns can vary from what H(P,P)
> >>>>>> returns.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When one simply assumes that pathological self-reference has no
> >>>>>> effect on a sequence of configurations one is proven to be
> >>>>>> incorrect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P(P) is still calling H not this mysterious H1 you have just
> >>>>> invented. Your H gets the halting decision wrong so is not a
> >>>>> halt decider.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>> H1(P,P) reports on the behavior of int main() { P(P); }
> >>>> H(P,P) is not allowed to report on the behavior of int main() {
> >>>> P(P); }
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Given:
> >>>
> >>> int main()
> >>> {
> >>> H(P,P);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> H(P,P) is NOT deciding on main() but on P(P) so why would there
> >>> be a mysterious H1 deciding on main()?
> >>>
> >>
> >> There is no mystery, H1 is an exact copy of H, yet does not have
> >> the pathological self-reference relationship with P. H1 is
> >> included in this project.
> >>
> >> Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project)
> >> (a) x86utm operating system
> >> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
> >> (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within
> >> Halt7.c https://liarparadox.org/2022_09_07.zip
> >
> > If H1 is an exact copy of H and H is a pure function then:
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> > H1(P,P); // returns 1
> > H(P,P); // returns 0
> > }
> >
> > This contradiction is proof that do do not have a working halt
> > decider and that you have not refuted the halting problem proofs.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> It can be easily verified that the correctly simulated behavior that
> H1 sees is different behavior than the correctly simulated behavior
> that H sees because of the pathological self-reference relationship
> between H and P.
>
> A function must always return the same value for the same inputs.
> Different functions can return different values for the same inputs.
> Add(2,3) returns a different value than Multiply(2,3).
If H1 is an exact copy of H and H is a pure function then H1 should
return the same result for the same input as H; it doesn't because you
don't have a working halt decider and haven't refuted the halting
problem proofs.
Only I have refuted the halting problem proofs with the Flibble
Signaling Halt Decider (TM).
/Flibble
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 19:18 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 19:29 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-08 20:49 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 20:22 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-08 21:43 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-08 21:00 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-08 22:44 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 22:31 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 07:25 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 09:32 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 16:40 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 10:48 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:25 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 11:40 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:43 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:39 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 11:46 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:49 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:00 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:10 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 12:14 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:18 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:22 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:30 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:48 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:51 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:57 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:07 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 13:10 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:12 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 13:18 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:23 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 13:28 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:31 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 13:40 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:44 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:03 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 20:06 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 14:39 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 13:51 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:03 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-10 10:25 +0200
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 10:37 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 18:57 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 10:41 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 14:52 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:09 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:23 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:33 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:38 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:49 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 20:53 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-10-09 14:13 +0300
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 07:26 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-09 09:23 +0000
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 15:29 +0200
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:32 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:47 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 15:17 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 16:32 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 13:42 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 18:47 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 18:25 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 19:45 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-10 19:06 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 20:16 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 21:30 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 23:00 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 22:18 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 23:34 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 21:24 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 22:44 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 21:59 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 23:14 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2022-10-09 20:43 +0000
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 12:05 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 19:06 -0400
csiph-web