Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #52891

Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation

Subject Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation
Newsgroups comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
References (10 earlier) <A-2dnVjBk9RiKyj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ae991ec7-edb8-4a8f-8461-b87ba83cdf62n@googlegroups.com> <t94mff$8jv$1@dont-email.me> <bab8ec9f-5d54-4399-bd07-58fdc239d783n@googlegroups.com> <ePednUX7feSMeij_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>
Message-ID <5UltK.132528$ntj.54082@fx15.iad> (permalink)
Organization Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date 2022-06-24 12:46 -0400

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/24/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2022 11:09 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 16:50:10 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2022 8:34 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 14:07:19 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2022 2:53 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 23 June 2022 at 23:44:12 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 16:50:31 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 13:16:36 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 2:55 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 04:10:45 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2022 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and P(P) reaches the ret instruction of H(P,P) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns 0, so H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was incorrect in its mapping, since the behavior of P(P) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the behavior of H(P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz and others were aware that: A halt decider must 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from its inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that is actually specified by these inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz and others made the false assumption that the actual 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is actually specified by the inputs to a simulating halt 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same as the direct execution of these inputs. They were 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unaware of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this because no one previously fully examined a simulating 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if that is what P calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and P is claimed to be built by the Linz template.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, either P isn't built right, or H isn't built fight, or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You've dry-run P(P) and it doesn't halt. Additionally the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider H
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports it as non-halting. So it's reasonable to assume that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, when run, P(P) halts. So what are we to conclude? 
>>>>>>>>>>>> That "the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behaviour that is actually specified by the inputs to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> a simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is not the same as the direct execution of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> these inputs"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is an actual immutable verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's your conclusion from your observations and reasoning. 
>>>>>>>>>> You've
>>>>>>>>>> dry-run P(P), and it doesn't halt. You've run H on P(P), and it
>>>>>>>>>> reports "non-halting". You've run P(P), and it halts. So one
>>>>>>>>>> explanation is the one you've given but, as I said, that 
>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>> has rather far-reaching consequences.
>>>>>>>>> There is only one explanation. What you call the "dry-run" is 
>>>>>>>>> not that
>>>>>>>>> same as the P(P). We've known this since the "line 15 commented 
>>>>>>>>> out"
>>>>>>>>> days. There are two computations -- one that is not stopped and 
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> that is, the "dry-run" and the run, the "simulation of the 
>>>>>>>>> input to
>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)" and P(P). All PO is doing is trying to find words that 
>>>>>>>>> hide
>>>>>>>>> what's going on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm a scientists, not a mathematician.
>>>>>>>> The example I always use is that you are doing an energy budget 
>>>>>>>> for tigers.
>>>>>>>> You work how much they use on running about, lactating, 
>>>>>>>> maintaining their
>>>>>>>> body temperature, and so on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now let's say that you find that all results are within a few 
>>>>>>>> percentage points
>>>>>>>> of a similar budget done for lions. You'd instantly accept this 
>>>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now let's say that the results are wildly different from a 
>>>>>>>> previous budget done
>>>>>>>> for lions. You wouldn't just accept that data. You'd check. 
>>>>>>>> You'd want to
>>>>>>>> understand the reasons tigers spend far less energy on movement 
>>>>>>>> than lions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now let's say that the result show that tigers use more energy 
>>>>>>>> than they
>>>>>>>> take in food. Would you instantly conclude that the law of 
>>>>>>>> conservation of
>>>>>>>> energy must be incorrect?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The third is what PO is doing.
>>>>>>> I have no idea what parts of this analogy map to the current 
>>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>> PO has no contradictory results about anything. There's no conflict
>>>>>>> with any established facts in anything he is doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's dry-run P(P) and established that it doesn't halt. He's 
>>>>>> invoked H on it
>>>>>> and H reports that it doesn't halt. He's run P(P) and it halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So something odd is going on there that needs an explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I already fully addressed that in my reply to you yesterday. P(P) 
>>>>> has a
>>>>> dependency relationship on the return value of H(P,P) that the 
>>>>> correctly
>>>>> emulated input to H(P,P) does not have. This changes their behavior
>>>>> relative to each other.
>>>>>
>>>> I can see an alternative explanation. I was going to say "it is 
>>>> obvious" but
>>>> no-one else has stepped in to point it out. Maybe because it's too 
>>>> obvious
>>>> and they want to give other posters a chance.
>>> To what exact extent do you have this mandatory prerequisite knowledge?
>>> To fully understand this code a software engineer must be an expert in:
>>> the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C
>>> translates into x86 and the ability to recognize infinite recursion at
>>> the x86 assembly language level.
>>> The ordinary semantics of standard C and the conventional x86 language
>>> are the entire semantics required to conclusively prove that H(P,P) does
>>> correctly determine that its correct and complete x86 emulation of its
>>> input would never reach the "ret" instruction of P.
>>> The halt decider and its input are written in C compiled with a
>>> Microsoft C compiler that generates a standard COFF object file. This
>>> file is the input to the x86utm operating system that runs on both
>>> Microsoft Windows and Linux.
>>>
>> I'm a C programmer and I have done machine code programming, though not
>> with the x86 chip. But I'd dispute your requirements. 
> 
> 
> THIS IS THE STIPULATED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS THUS 
> DISAGREEMENT IS INHERENTLY INCORRECT.
> 
>  From a purely software engineering perspective H is correctly defined 
> to correctly determine that its correct and complete x86 emulation of 
> its input would never reach the "ret" instruction of this input and it 
> is proven that H does do this correctly in a finite number of steps.

YOU CAN'T "STIPULATE" correctness.

ARGUEMENT FATALLY FLAWED.

> 
>> To re-tread the analogy,
>> our measurements show that tigers use more energy than they take in.
>> Now you could construct an very complicated explanation for that using
>> advanced quantum mechanics and other concepts. And you do need to have
>> a rudimentary understanding of physics to see where the difficulty lies.
> 
>> But you don't need more than the rudimentary understanding to suggest the
>> alternative explanation, and to realise that it is overwhelmingly more 
>> likely.
> 
> It seems that you may be saying that it is OK to disbelieve verified 
> facts some of the time. I vehemently disagree and this position could 
> cause both the end of Democracy in the USA and the extinction of 
> humanity in the world through lack of climate change action.
> 
> Ordinary software engineering conclusively proves that all of my claims 
> that I just stated are easily verified as factually correct.
> 
> Anyone that disagrees with claims that are verified as factually correct 
> is either insufficiently technically competent or less than totally 
> honest. Someone that refuses to acknowledge that claims are correct when 
> they know that these claims are correct is less than totally honest.
> 
> I believe that you are as honest as you can be and the issue is that you 
> have a lack of sufficient understanding.
>

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-21 21:38 -0500
  Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-21 22:52 -0400
    Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-21 22:10 -0500
      Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-21 23:28 -0400
      Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-06-22 05:52 +0200
      Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 00:55 -0700
        Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 07:16 -0500
          Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 05:45 -0700
            Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 07:53 -0500
              Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 09:55 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 19:05 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 18:39 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:22 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:30 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:56 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:03 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:19 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:33 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:49 -0400
            Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-22 16:50 +0100
              Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 12:58 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 19:11 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:00 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:25 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:34 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:05 -0400
              Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 01:19 -0700
                Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 13:14 -0500
                Re: Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 11:26 -0700
                Re: Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 19:00 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-23 23:44 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 20:38 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 00:53 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 08:07 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 09:18 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 06:34 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 09:32 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 12:07 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 10:50 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 09:09 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 11:32 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 12:46 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 11:52 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 15:55 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 10:29 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 12:42 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 12:34 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 15:20 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 16:00 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 20:42 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 13:25 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 15:35 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 16:59 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 23:16 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 17:25 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 16:58 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 19:12 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 21:56 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 21:50 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 23:59 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 21:01 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 23:33 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 22:09 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 00:24 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 00:32 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 09:28 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 10:03 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 16:09 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 10:19 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 16:21 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 10:54 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 16:59 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:06 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 17:25 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:32 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:12 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:20 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:33 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 13:03 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-06-25 18:31 +0200
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:40 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 12:59 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 09:39 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 00:55 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 20:07 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 02:16 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 20:36 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-26 14:40 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 19:57 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 21:42 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 15:53 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 20:58 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 03:03 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 05:31 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 12:15 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 11:27 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:00 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 14:11 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:26 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 14:37 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:43 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 14:54 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 21:15 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 15:37 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 21:40 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 15:42 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-26 15:09 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-26 14:56 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:01 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 03:14 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 05:42 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 13:58 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 16:18 -0500
  Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-22 11:11 -0600
    Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 13:10 -0500
      Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-22 16:10 -0600
        Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 17:34 -0500
        Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 17:37 -0500
        Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-23 05:20 -0700
          Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 13:03 -0500
  Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 20:31 +0100
    Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 15:27 -0500
      Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 22:20 +0100
        Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 16:41 -0500
          Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 22:49 +0100
            Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 16:58 -0500
              Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-23 00:01 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 18:29 -0500
          Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 14:53 -0700
            Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 17:22 -0500
              Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 15:48 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 18:11 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:02 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:16 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:21 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:37 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:44 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:15 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:22 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:42 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:52 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 19:23 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:46 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 19:48 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 01:28 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:54 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 13:52 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-24 13:05 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 15:27 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 04:56 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 09:10 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 15:53 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 09:19 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:29 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 10:21 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 12:52 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 11:58 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:15 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:18 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 16:11 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:15 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-25 20:24 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 12:33 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:49 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 17:35 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 00:28 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 20:34 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 19:54 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 19:55 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 19:56 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 19:57 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 21:47 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:39 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 19:21 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 00:42 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 23:23 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 17:58 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 22:00 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:52 -0400
      Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:32 -0400
        Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:37 -0500
          Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:48 -0400
            Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:55 -0500
              Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:05 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:20 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:32 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-23 05:13 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-06-23 17:28 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 11:42 -0500
                Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 12:44 -0500
              Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:14 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:29 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:36 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:41 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:45 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:18 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:34 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:55 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 23:41 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 00:13 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 00:19 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 07:20 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-23 20:41 +0100
                Software engineers [ not Flibble ] can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 14:56 -0500
                Re: Software engineers [ not Flibble ] can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-23 20:59 +0100
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 16:55 -0700
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 20:38 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 21:59 -0400
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 21:10 -0500
                Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 22:29 -0400
    Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ nitwit rebuttals ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 15:47 -0500
      Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ nitwit rebuttals ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 22:13 +0100

csiph-web