Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Date | 2022-11-12 19:26 +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 | <20221112192618.00003dec@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (21 earlier) <_9RbL.5611$gBW5.2085@fx06.iad> <tkonum$17cpp$1@dont-email.me> <7xRbL.11594$o6Z5.1319@fx07.iad> <20221112184207.000004d1@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <d3SbL.14322$%VI9.13847@fx34.iad> |
| Organization | NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 14:00:21 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> On 11/12/22 1:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> So, you don't understand the meaning of ad hominem. The fallacy of
> ad-hominem is to say the person must be wrong because they are a "X".
> That is not what my statement is, but that he is wrong for a
> specified logical reason. I then point out that BECAUSE he is stating
> these incorrect statements, he is a liar and stupid. That is a valid
> logical deduction.
>
> YOU are showing you lack of understanding.
I fully understand what constitutes an ad hominem; YOU are using a
DISGUISED ad hominem by using insults after the fact in an attempt to
strengthen your argument. A DISGUISED ad hominem is still an ad
hominem if you use it as part of your argument, which you are.
To be clear, if you called Olcott "big nose" rather than "stupid" then
that would just be an insult however calling someone "stupid" implies
you think they have a low IQ which is a characteristic that directly
relates to their ability to argue/debate (unlike "big nose") and so is
a logical fallacy, albeit a disguised one.
/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