Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ DOES NOT HOLD ] |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng, sci.math.symbolic |
| References | (21 earlier) <sd8465$dni$1@dont-email.me> <2_Wdnf1tmfPLB2r9nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sd867u$mn2$1@dont-email.me> <9q-dnbvBf50GPGr9nZ2dnUU7-T3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sd8bgo$gc8$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
| Date | 2021-07-21 09:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <OOudnQbYENC0tmX9nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On 7/21/2021 12:32 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-20 22:24, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/20/2021 11:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-20 21:53, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2021 10:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-07-20 21:06, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-07-20 20:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 7:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-07-20 17:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 5:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-07-20 16:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 2:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-07-20 13:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 1:53 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Malicious cross posting removed ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2021 12:35 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Malicious cross posting removed ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show all the steps of exactly how H(P,P)==0 is derived.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't. You haven't yet published the source code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an alleged H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you simply ignore these steps and claim that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's being dishonest to indulge you with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion that what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are doing has any possible validity. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unimportant and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uninteresting why H(P,P)==0, if it actually is. It has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no bearing on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting theorem proofs, which work regardless of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nature of any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purported halting decider. Seeing as how you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disprove these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs honestly, you resort to falsehoods and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obfuscation. Even so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other posters on this newsgroup have seen through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it and exposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. When is all this nonsense going to end?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the proofs conclusively prove that H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean value corresponding to the actual halt status of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P to P in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of the proofs bother to examine whether or not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status from H to P in the above computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required, they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply assume that it is required. *That is their error*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For crying out loud! It is an error to require what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement of the problem? The central element of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a *UNIVERSAL* halting decider. And you're saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting upon this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *universality* is an error?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I universal halt decider is one thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A universal halt decider that must return a correct halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status to an input that does the opposite of whatever it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides is a much narrower specification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Universal' means it decides all Turing Machines. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter would case would be included in 'universal'. so if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it cannot return the correct decision in that case it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not universal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not strictly necessary for a halt decider to return
>>>>>>>>>>>> any value to its input. This is merely a false assumption. H
>>>>>>>>>>>> in main() aborts the simulation of P before the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of H in P ever returns any value to P. All of P including
>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of H in P is strictly controlled by the H in
>>>>>>>>>>>> main():
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But it is your contention that your 'decider' *only* aborts
>>>>>>>>>>> an input if that input would not otherwise halt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It took me several days to verify (many months before I began
>>>>>>>>>> posting about it) yet it is confirmed that if the outermost H
>>>>>>>>>> does not abort its input then no other H ever will.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But what does the outermost H do *after* it aborts its input?
>>>>>>>>> When P(P) is run independently, neither the outermost P nor the
>>>>>>>>> H which it contains are being simulated so they cannot be
>>>>>>>>> aborted. So what value does the H inside the outermost P return
>>>>>>>>> to P?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> if (H(x, x))
>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> P((u32)P);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P(P) does specify infinitely nested simulation that must be
>>>>>>>> aborted or it will never stop running. Invoking P(P) in main()
>>>>>>>> merely postpones the inevitable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P(P) specifies a computation which at some point starts a series
>>>>>>> of simulations, but the outermost P isn't part of that series of
>>>>>>> simulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you are forced to abort some instance of H you are
>>>>>>>>>>> therefore claiming that that instance does not halt on its
>>>>>>>>>>> input, which means that you are acknowledging that your H
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot decide all possible inputs. Therefore H is not a
>>>>>>>>>>> universal decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, when P(P) is run independently, neither the
>>>>>>>>>>> uppermost P nor the H inside the uppermost P are under the
>>>>>>>>>>> controller of a simulator
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The H that is executed rather than simulating by another H is
>>>>>>>>>> always in control of its whole simulation chain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When P(P) is executed independently, the outermost P isn't part
>>>>>>>>> of any simulation chain and is outside the scope of any H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the outermost P stops running this does not count as
>>>>>>>> halting every element of the P(P) invocation chain specifies
>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course it counts as halting. The outermost P isn't being
>>>>>>> simulated, so it can't be aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've agreed that when you abort a simulation that doesn't entail
>>>>>>> that the *simulation* halted, because the simulation never
>>>>>>> reaches one of its final states.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the outermost P *isn't* (and can't be) aborted. It halts by
>>>>>>> reaching one of its final states. That is what it means to halt
>>>>>>> *by definition*. That definitely counts as halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> since they are not being simulated. Therefore, the H inside
>>>>>>>>>>> the uppermost P *must* return a value to the uppermost P
>>>>>>>>>>> since there is no way for that H to be aborted. So which
>>>>>>>>>>> value does it return?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less by logical necessity whenever H aborts its input
>>>>>>>>>> it is always correct because its input would never ever stop
>>>>>>>>>> running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't answer my question. Which value does the H
>>>>>>>>> contained in the outermost P (the one that isn't emulated)
>>>>>>>>> return to P?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question is whether or not H decides its input correctly.
>>>>>>>> We know that H does decide its input correctly by logical
>>>>>>>> necessity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So why not actually answer the question? If H decides its input
>>>>>>> correctly, what answer does the H contained in the outermost P
>>>>>>> return to the outermost P?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We know that the input to H does not halt on its input by logical
>>>>>> necessity: We can verify that the input to H never every halts
>>>>>> unless H aborts its simulation of its input:(P, P).
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no 'logical necessity' involved here. The definition of
>>>>> 'halting' is clear and unambiguous. A computation halts when it
>>>>> reaches one of its final states.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the H contained in the outermost P of P(P) returns 'false', then
>>>>> the outermost P *will* reach one of its final states, which means
>>>>> that P(P) *does* halt. This clearly and unambiguously demonstrates
>>>>> that whatever 'logic' your H is using to decide that P(P) doesn't
>>>>> halt is simply wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This would be a contradiction proving that whatever logic that H
>>>> uses is wrong except that the logic that H used is verifiably
>>>> infallible.
>>>>
>>>> This is why I phrased this case as [What if a cat barks?]
>>>>
>>>> If you verify that H did decide that its input never halts correctly
>>>> and then a very similar computation does halt, then this is just
>>>> like verifying that an animal is a cat by its DNA and then this cat
>>>> barks.
>>>>
>>>> It is absolutely certain that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>> stop running unless H aborts its simulation of its input. We
>>>> verified that the animal has cat DNA.
>>>>
>>>> When we run int main() { P(P); } P reaches its final state c3f.
>>>> The cat barks.
>>>
>>> The problem is that reaching a final state is how halting is *defined*.
>>>
>>
>> It is good that you are focusing on reaching final states as the
>> measure of halting. This currently seems to be a very good measure.
>
> It's not just a good measure. It's the bloody definition. It's the
> *only* thing that actually matters.
>
> The definition of halting is that a computation reaches one of its final
> states in a finite amount of steps.
>
> The definition doesn't mention, or care, about what happens when a
> computation is simulated inside your broken "halt decider".
>
>> It also proves that I am right about the input to H(P,P) never halting.
>>
>> The input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state whether or not H
>> aborts its simulation of this input, thus proving that the input to H
>> really does never halt.
>
> The simulation of P(P) inside H isn't what is being asked about. What is
> being asked about is whether P(P) when run as an actual computation (not
> simply as the input to some alleged simulator) reaches a final state.
>
> It does. Period. Therefore *by definition* it halts.
>
>>> Thus, using your silly analogy, the fact that P(P) reaches a final
>>> state *is* the DNA. Whatever your 'decider' is looking at is
>>> something else altogether.
>>>
>>
>> That the two computations are not identical is why one does not
>> contradict the other.
>
> If you're claiming that P(P) is a different computation when run
> independently than it is when run in your simulator, you're simply
> admitting that your simulator is *not* properly simulating P(P). Thus
> whatever your H has to say about its input is completely and utterly
> irrelevant to the actual computation under consideration.
>
The fact that no P every halts unless some H aborts it proves that H[0]
did decide not halting of P[2] correctly.
int H2(u32 P, u32 I)
{
((int(*)(int))P)(I);
return 1;
}
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H2(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
int main()
{
P((u32)P);
}
Here is an example where no halt decider ever aborts its input and its
input never halts.
>> No P(P) ever halts unless some H aborts some P.
>
> No H aborts P(P) when it is run independently because IT ISN'T BEING RUN
> INSIDE H. Its input might be aborted, but that isn't the computation.
> That's the input to the computation. And as you admit above, the input
> isn't actually being accurately simulated.
>
I never admit that the input is not being accurately simulated in that
the behavior of the input under H2 will show the exact same execution
trace as the behavior of the input under H.
P(P) does specify infinitely nested simulation that must be aborted or
it will never stop running. Invoking P(P) in main() merely postpones the
inevitable.
> The behaviour of P(P) is *all* that matters. To accept the claim of your
> simulating 'decider' over the actual behaviour of P(P) is simply daft.
> Its akin to claiming the moon is new because your astrologer told you so
> even when looking out the window clearly shows it to be full.
>
The fact that P never halts when it calls H2 instead of H conclusively
proves that some H must abort some P and when it does this it is
correctly deciding that this input never halts.
> Halting is *defined* in terms of the behaviour of an actual computation.
> It is not defined in terms of any decider. We judge the accuracy of a
> decider based on the actual behaviour. Not vice versa.
>
Not quite, an infinite loop that stops running because it was aborted
could be misconstrued as a halting computation. A computation such as P
that has a final state this is not in the loop of its infinite behavior
can be construed as halting when it reaches this final state. I
currently believe that this is a definitive measure. I may update this
assessment in the future.
>>> As has been pointed out numerous times, by numerous people, the logic
>>> by which your H decides that P(P) "must" be aborted is faulty,
>>> because it entirely ignores part of the computation P.
>>>
>>
>> It is very simple
>> No P(P) ever stops running unless some H aborts some P.
>
> And the P that is aborted is *not* the topmost P. The topmost P actually
> halts. One of the simulations does not.
>
In the computation int main(){ H(P,P); } no P ever reaches any final
state whether or not H aborts and P. This proves beyond all possible
doubt that the input to H never halts.
> But the fact that a simulation is aborted says nothing about its halting
> status.
As I have said far too many times, the fact that unless the simulation
is aborted it can be easily verified on the basis of the execution trace
that the simulation would never end conclusively proves that H did
correctly decide that its input never halts.
The same thing goes for this computation, it never halts unless H does
decide that its input never halts: int main(){ P(P); } This proves that
H decided correctly.
> It simply says that some simulation was not allowed to continue.
> And that simulation was being *conducted* by the outermost P (or rather
> the H inside it). It was that outermost P which *decided* to discontinue
> the simulation *in accordance* to the algorithm which defines that
> computation. And it was at that point that the outermost P *halted*.
>
Even though the outermost P does reach its final state it only reaches
it final state because H correctly decided that its input never halts.
Because of this the argument that the outer P reaches its final state
contradicts that H decided its input correctly DOES NOT HOLD.
There is never a case where H(P,P)==0 is incorrect.
It can be easily verified that that input to H(P,P) never reaches its
final state whether or not H aborts its simulation of this input.
This conclusively proves that its input never halts thus conclusively
proving that H does correctly decide that this input never halts.
> The input to any computation is *not* an actual computation. If you
> decide to partially simulate the input it is still not a computation.
> Halting applies only to actual computations. In this case, the outermost
> *and only* the outermost P acting on the input P.
>
> And that computation halts.
>
> The definition of halting is what it is, regardless of what you want it
> to be.
>
> André
>
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 13:50 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 13:22 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 14:37 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 13:59 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:06 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 09:17 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 14:20 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:24 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 14:34 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:38 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 14:45 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:53 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 15:12 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) [ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 11:53 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-17 20:38 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 08:04 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 16:12 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 08:25 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 16:28 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 08:37 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 11:58 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 14:17 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 11:23 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 17:45 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 12:08 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 11:17 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 15:19 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-17 20:51 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 16:48 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-18 10:57 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-18 07:36 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 08:58 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-19 08:23 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-19 18:20 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 08:25 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-20 17:35 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 13:26 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-20 18:53 +0000
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 14:04 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 12:27 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 13:49 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 17:14 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 16:27 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 18:20 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 18:34 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 21:04 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 20:24 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 22:06 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 20:21 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 21:26 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 22:53 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 22:02 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-20 23:24 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 22:12 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-20 23:32 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ DOES NOT HOLD ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 09:11 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ DOES NOT HOLD ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 10:03 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ DOES NOT HOLD ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 11:11 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ DOES NOT HOLD ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 10:42 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ DOES NOT HOLD ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 10:16 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 21:23 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 11:45 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 10:22 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 12:23 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 10:41 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 12:26 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 13:54 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 13:26 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 14:44 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 12:56 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 15:09 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 16:29 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 15:02 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 21:08 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 12:55 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 11:29 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 12:51 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 12:19 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 13:49 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 13:22 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 14:43 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 13:12 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ][ADD] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 16:07 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ][ADD] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 14:32 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ][ADD] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 16:50 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ][ADD] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 15:07 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 15:06 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 16:22 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 14:38 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 15:57 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 17:21 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 15:53 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-21 16:59 -0600
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 20:21 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 18:53 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 13:07 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-21 15:29 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ Paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-21 14:08 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 19:33 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 18:07 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 12:14 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 12:06 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 10:39 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-17 15:55 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 09:18 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:20 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-17 11:13 -0500
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 06:57 -0700
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-17 15:17 +0100
Re: Halting Problem Solved? (Black Box Decider Theory) V2 wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 07:36 -0700
csiph-web