Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Date | 2022-11-12 18:42 +0000 |
|---|---|
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input |
| Message-ID | <20221112184207.000004d1@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (20 earlier) <6PPbL.71121$Jjx8.38057@fx15.iad> <tkojg4$172nl$2@dont-email.me> <_9RbL.5611$gBW5.2085@fx06.iad> <tkonum$17cpp$1@dont-email.me> <7xRbL.11594$o6Z5.1319@fx07.iad> |
| Organization | NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:24:00 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> On 11/12/22 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 11/12/2022 11:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >> On 11/12/22 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 11/12/2022 10:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>> On 11/12/22 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/12/2022 9:03 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:52:12 -0500
> >>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 11/12/22 9:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:23 -0500
> >>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/12/22 9:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 19:24:53 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 6:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 18:25:58 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 4:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:44:49 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and I would have thought given your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligence you would also understand that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly ignores me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to what I say, even if not in a direct reply,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has blocked me, he will still see me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the archives, I want enough evidence to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around to point out his errors.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and provide reasoning behind the claims,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing the Truth.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't actually know what he is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about, and reveals his ignorance. If he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tries to put his explanation into explicit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even to him, so he just refuses.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only basis. Naive readers will never notice
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, yet naive readers are not in my target
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine (UTM) knows that the behavior of D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H provides H with a correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for its halt status decision.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shell game can correctly deny this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the CORRECT simulation, as will the diret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exectuion, will halt. Note, such an H doesn't do a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation, so any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguement based on it doing so it just WRONG.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The need to abort the simulation is due to the self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference category error present in the proof; what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott is getting wrong is the mapping of the need to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation to a halt decision of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting; it needs to instead be mapped to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> INVALID INPUT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, no self reference.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> E just has a copy of the H that claim to be deciding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it, not a "reference" to it. Turing Machines do not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have the power to directly express a reference.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if it isn't a self reference then it is infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>> copies all the way down so is the same category error
> >>>>>>>>>>>> manifesting in a different way.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Only if the "decider" makes that happen, in which case it
> >>>>>>>>>>> isn't actually a decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If we assume a prospective decider exists, then the
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Impossible" program is simple to make from it, and is
> >>>>>>>>>>> given one copy of the description of itself, which is
> >>>>>>>>>>> also simple to make.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> When run it makes a second copy of its description, and
> >>>>>>>>>>> then calls the decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> After that, it is the deciders job to make the decision
> >>>>>>>>>>> in finite
> >>>>>>>>>>> time, by whatever method it wants. If it gets stuck in
> >>>>>>>>>>> your infinite loop, the decider is just wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The proof shows that what ever answer the decider does
> >>>>>>>>>>> give (if it gives one) will be wrong, and thus the
> >>>>>>>>>>> decider doesn't meet the requirements.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No "Self Reference" in sight there only a program being
> >>>>>>>>>>> given a copy of something that just happens to be its own
> >>>>>>>>>>> description.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The only place we get any form of "Reference", is when we
> >>>>>>>>>>> try to ANALYSE or DESIGN the H to try to meet the
> >>>>>>>>>>> challenge. There the effect of the Self-Reference just
> >>>>>>>>>>> lets us see that the task turns
> >>>>>>>>>>> out be be impossible, so no such program exists.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You are fractally wrong on all fronts: in the traditional
> >>>>>>>>>> halting problem proofs based on [Strachey 1965] the
> >>>>>>>>>> program is impossible not due to self reference or
> >>>>>>>>>> infinite copies but because the input
> >>>>>>>>>> tries to do the opposite of what the decider decides; the
> >>>>>>>>>> category
> >>>>>>>>>> error that I have identified is different: it is an error
> >>>>>>>>>> of self reference and/or infinite copies; it is an error
> >>>>>>>>>> related to the fact that the input references a decider
> >>>>>>>>>> rather than being related
> >>>>>>>>>> to what the input does with the decision result of a
> >>>>>>>>>> decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But the infinite copies is a error in the Decider, not in
> >>>>>>>>> Strachey's program. The decider is SUPPOSED to be able to
> >>>>>>>>> handle ANY input and answer in finite time, If an input
> >>>>>>>>> causes it to make infinite copies, then the decided just
> >>>>>>>>> doesn't meet its requirements.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Turing Machine can ALWAYS be legally built based on another
> >>>>>>>>> Turing Machine as a base. The only reason it wouldn't be
> >>>>>>>>> allowed is if H isn't actually a Turing Machine, so it
> >>>>>>>>> CAN'T be a category error if H is actualy a Turing Machine.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> All your declaration of a "Category Error" here is doing is
> >>>>>>>>> admitting that your H can't actually be a Turing Machine,
> >>>>>>>>> but must be of a HIGHER order logic system, which means H
> >>>>>>>>> fails the requirement to be the needed decider.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In which case we get infinite turning machines all the way
> >>>>>>>> down: yet
> >>>>>>>> another manifestation of the category error I have
> >>>>>>>> identified.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Where are infinite machines? There is ONE machine being run,
> >>>>>>> either H
> >>>>>>> or D, and it SIMULATING others, and if we get an infinite
> >>>>>>> sequence of
> >>>>>>> simulations we have just shown that H was defective because
> >>>>>>> it failed
> >>>>>>> to answer in finite time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This isn't a category error, but a design error in H.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note, when we start H, there is exactly two machines present
> >>>>>>> in representation on the tape, and two is much smaller than
> >>>>>>> infinity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope, if,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> a) H is a copy, and
> >>>>>> b) H is a Turing Machine, and
> >>>>>> c) D is an input into H, and
> >>>>>> d) D references H, and
> >>>>>> e) H references D,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> then (d) and (e) repeat ad infinitum so we get infinite Turing
> >>>>>> Machines
> >>>>>> all the way down: a manifestation of the category error I have
> >>>>>> identified.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> void E(void (*x)())
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> H(x, x);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The point is
> >>>>> that D correctly simulated by H would never reach its own last
> >>>>> instruction and terminate normally after 1 to ∞ steps of
> >>>>> correct simulation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When H returns 0 to main() it is indicating
> >>>>>
> >>>>> that D correctly simulated by H would never reach its own last
> >>>>> instruction and terminate normally after 1 to ∞ steps of
> >>>>> correct simulation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Except D is NOT correctly simulated by H, so that is a incorrect
> >>>> statement. When it is correctly simulated by something other
> >>>> than H, it will come to a final state, showing your statement is
> >>>> wrong.
> >>> In order for the simulation to actually be incorrect the
> >>> execution trace of the simulated E must diverge from the behavior
> >>> that the line-by-line x86 source-code of E specifies.
> >>
> >> Right, and since you simulation does NOT continue past the call to
> >> H, it is "incorrect" in the sense that the actual code does
> >> continue past that point, so it does not actually match the
> >> behavior of that machine.
> >>>
> >>> The first seven lines of the execution trace of the simulated E
> >>> exactly match the behavior specified by the first seven lines of
> >>> the x86 source code of E. This conclusively proves beyond all
> >>> possible doubt that these first seven lines have been simulated
> >>> correctly.
> >>
> >> Right, so H has correctly done a PARTIAL simulation of its input,
> >> which does NOT prove the input is non-halting.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> *H correctly determines that E never halts*
> >>>
> >>> void E(void (*x)())
> >>> {
> >>> H(x, x);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> int main()
> >>> {
> >>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(E, E));
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> _E()
> >>> [000019d2] 55 push ebp
> >>> [000019d3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>> [000019d5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>> [000019d8] 50 push eax
> >>> [000019d9] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>> [000019dc] 51 push ecx
> >>> [000019dd] e8b0f9ffff call 00001392
> >>> [000019e2] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>> [000019e5] 5d pop ebp
> >>> [000019e6] c3 ret
> >>> Size in bytes:(0021) [000019e6]
> >>>
> >>> _main()
> >>> [000019f2] 55 push ebp
> >>> [000019f3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>> [000019f5] 68d2190000 push 000019d2
> >>> [000019fa] 68d2190000 push 000019d2
> >>> [000019ff] e88ef9ffff call 00001392
> >>> [00001a04] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>> [00001a07] 50 push eax
> >>> [00001a08] 6893060000 push 00000693
> >>> [00001a0d] e8a0ecffff call 000006b2
> >>> [00001a12] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>> [00001a15] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>> [00001a17] 5d pop ebp
> >>> [00001a18] c3 ret
> >>> Size in bytes:(0039) [00001a18]
> >>>
> >>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> >>> address address data code language
> >>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> >>> [000019f2][00102a7c][00000000] 55 push ebp
> >>> [000019f3][00102a7c][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>> [000019f5][00102a78][000019d2] 68d2190000 push 000019d2 // push E
> >>> [000019fa][00102a74][000019d2] 68d2190000 push 000019d2 // push E
> >>> [000019ff][00102a70][00001a04] e88ef9ffff call 00001392 // call H
> >>>
> >>> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:112b28
> >>> Address_of_H:1392
> >>> [000019d2][00112b14][00112b18] 55 push ebp
> >>> [000019d3][00112b14][00112b18] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>> [000019d5][00112b14][00112b18] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>> [000019d8][00112b10][000019d2] 50 push eax //
> >>> push E [000019d9][00112b10][000019d2] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>> [000019dc][00112b0c][000019d2] 51 push ecx //
> >>> push E [000019dd][00112b08][000019e2] e8b0f9ffff call 00001392
> >>> // call H H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation
> >>> Stopped
> >>>
> >>> H correctly reports that E correctly simulated by H cannot
> >>> possibly reach its own final state at machine address [000019e6]
> >>> and terminate normally in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> So you are just admitting you don't understand the Halting
> >> Criteria.
> >>
> >> The fact that H stops its simulation before it gets to the end
> >> does NOT prove that the machine being simulated, or a correct and
> >> complete simultion of the input would be non-halting.
> > We must handle only one point at a time because you are easily
> > overwhelmed. You usually cannot even handle one point at a time
> > until this point is repeated 20 or more times.
> >
> > The fact that the line-by-line execution trace of the first seven
> > instructions E simulated by H exactly match the behavior specified
> > by the first seven instructions of the x86 source-code of E
> > conclusively proves that these first seven instructions are
> > simulated correctly.
>
> No, that says that H did a correct PARTIAL simulation of the input.
> You seem to be INTENTIONALLY using deceptive terminology to spread
> you lies.
>
> So, I suppose you can correctly say that the input doesn't stop
> within its first 7 instructions, but that doesn't mean anything.
>
> Since you make a claim about a COMPLETE simulation (the it will never
> end) you need to establish THAT fact (and you can't change the input
> to do it, which includes the H the E calls).
>
> YOU FAIL
>
> You show that you don't understand what you are talking about and
> seem to actually think that you are proving something by using wrong
> defintions.
>
> You are just showing how stupid you are.
Again with the ad hominem attacks: "liar", "stupid" etc. You are not
very good at his are you, Mr Damon.
/Flibble
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 09:28 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 10:57 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-11 18:36 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 13:43 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 13:16 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 14:30 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 13:39 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 16:07 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 15:15 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 16:44 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-11 21:54 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 16:44 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 18:25 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-11 23:55 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 17:59 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 19:24 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 18:46 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 21:15 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 20:35 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 21:45 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 20:48 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 21:56 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 22:00 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:02 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 08:43 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:06 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 15:12 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:52 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 10:20 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 11:47 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 22:17 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:08 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 08:55 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:02 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 14:09 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:32 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 14:41 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:52 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 15:03 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:26 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 15:38 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:59 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 10:06 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 11:21 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 09:50 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 11:26 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 11:00 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 12:59 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 12:16 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 13:24 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 18:42 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 14:00 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 19:26 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 13:37 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 14:54 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 12:45 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 13:57 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 13:04 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 14:21 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 13:36 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 15:01 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 14:07 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 15:26 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 14:35 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 16:28 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 15:59 -0600
Olcottaholics anonymous Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-11-12 21:25 +0000
E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 16:04 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 17:26 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 16:33 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 17:55 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 17:38 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 19:02 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 19:31 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 21:30 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 22:00 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 23:38 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 23:04 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 08:00 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-13 09:39 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 14:34 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-13 13:49 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 15:38 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 14:51 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2022-11-13 16:02 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 15:16 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 16:59 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 16:08 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-13 22:25 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 14:33 -0800
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 16:42 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 18:14 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 17:26 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-13 23:52 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-13 18:00 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 19:33 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 19:29 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-14 19:27 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 13:44 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-14 21:53 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-14 21:53 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-15 17:45 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-15 12:00 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-16 20:04 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-17 17:14 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-17 11:25 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 17:36 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 19:36 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 18:07 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-13 23:30 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 19:37 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-11-14 11:02 +0100
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 03:44 -0800
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-11-14 16:17 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-11-14 11:34 -0700
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 13:20 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-14 21:53 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-14 20:00 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-14 21:52 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 18:04 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 17:20 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 19:43 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-13 05:40 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-13 04:17 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 12:35 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 18:19 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 13:33 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 09:51 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 14:50 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 16:37 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 18:20 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 17:39 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 18:48 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 18:05 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 19:29 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 18:51 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 21:25 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 20:36 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 21:51 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 20:57 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 22:25 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 21:36 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:11 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-11-11 12:56 -0700
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 14:19 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-11-11 18:43 -0700
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 21:06 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 20:21 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 23:35 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:15 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 14:31 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 08:35 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:58 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 15:16 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:41 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 15:52 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 11:09 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 16:42 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 11:04 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 12:07 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 09:27 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:46 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 10:02 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 11:14 -0500
csiph-web