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

Groups > comp.theory > #51988

Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ Ordinary software engineering ]

Subject Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ Ordinary software engineering ]
Newsgroups comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
References (20 earlier) <CZWdnQh_NLwe9QD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <e_dnK.35922$kaDc.28131@fx46.iad> <oaWdna1jVqsT8wD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <6uenK.7587$x7oc.45@fx01.iad> <zJednRViLZP46gD_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>
Message-ID <ndfnK.2930$sW.2247@fx37.iad> (permalink)
Organization Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date 2022-06-06 00:17 -0400

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/5/22 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/5/2022 10:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/5/22 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/5/2022 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/5/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/5/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/5/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/5/2022 8:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 01:24, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2022 5:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> <..snip..>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>>>>> The question right now is what you would call a TM which 
>>>>>>>>>> evaluates the first 10 steps of a computation, and then does 
>>>>>>>>>> something else. What is it doing while evaluating those 10 steps?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What would I call it? POOP! It just goes to show the accuracy 
>>>>>>>>> and flexibility of Ben's acronym for any Peter-related concept.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But PO didn't invent the concept of (partially) simulating a 
>>>>>>>> computation in order to compute certain properties of that 
>>>>>>>> computation!  It's been around since Turing's days, and is very 
>>>>>>>> useful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is true. I am apparently the first one that ever thought 
>>>>>>> this through well enough so that machine descriptions matching 
>>>>>>> the following pattern could be correctly determined to be 
>>>>>>> non-halting:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a 
>>>>>>> "pathological"
>>>>>>>       program P, called with some input, can pass its own source 
>>>>>>> and its input to
>>>>>>>       H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts 
>>>>>>> P will do. No H
>>>>>>>       can exist that handles this case. 
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In that a partial simulation does correctly predict the behavior 
>>>>>>> of a complete simulation it can be used to recognize infinite 
>>>>>>> behavior patterns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that it doesn't since P(P) Halts if H(P,P) returns 0, 
>>>>>> which, by the DEFINITION of the requirements of the Halting 
>>>>>> Problem, H(P,P) needs to accept (return 1) if P(P) Halts, 
>>>>> This seems to be brand new computer science that I just discovered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Previously no one understood that it was possible for the correct 
>>>>> simulation of the input to H(P,P) to be computationally distinct 
>>>>> (thus not equivalent) to the direct execution of P(P).
>>>>
>>>> By what definition of "Correct" are you using?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ordinary software engineering proves that a correct and complete x86 
>>> emulation of the input to H(P,P) never reaches its "ret" instruction.
>>>
>>
>> So, I guess this just shows that you don't actually know a definition 
>> that shows this, so this is just another of your lies.
> 
> Ordinary software engineering proves that a correct and complete x86 
> emulation of the input to H(P,P) never reaches its "ret" instruction.

Nope. Not if H(P,P) returns 0, as simple facts show that if H(P,P) 
returns 0 that P(P) will halt.

Good engineering NEVER contradicts actual facts.

> 
> _P()
> [00001352](01)  55              push ebp
> [00001353](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00001355](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001358](01)  50              push eax      // push P
> [00001359](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [0000135c](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
> [0000135d](05)  e840feffff      call 000011a2 // call H
> [00001362](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00001365](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
> [00001367](02)  7402            jz 0000136b
> [00001369](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001369
> [0000136b](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [0000136c](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
> 
> It is completely obvious that when H(P,P) correctly emulates its input 
> that it must emulate the first seven instructions of P. Because the 
> seventh instruction of P repeats this process we can know with complete 
> certainty that the emulated P never reaches its final “ret” instruction, 
> thus never halts.
> 

Maybe to you, but it is wrong (which might be why it is obvious to you).

Let us start by assuming that H doesn't just abort its simulation until 
it has enough information to be obviously wrong.

H(P,P) will first emulate the first 7 instructions of P as you say.

Then it emulates the result of the call to H, so it emulates the start 
of the emulation of the input to this H, which is also P,P.

That proceeds, as you almost say through the emulation of the emulaiton 
of the first 7 instructions of P. While doing this, the outer emulation 
will notice that the machine it has been emulating has been checking 
conditions along the way.

We then get to the point that the emulation of the emulation reaches the 
2nd level call to H, and the top level emulator will see that emulator 
it is emulating checking if things have recursed too far.

At this point, the outer H has seen enough that it can see that if it 
has aborted its simulation as soon as it say P calling H(P,P) and 
matching that input to H to the input IT had, and calling that an 
infinite repeat pattern, it would have been wrong, as a correct 
emulation of that input would have continued and reached THIS point 
where the H it was emulating made that same decision.

In fact, if the decider was smart enough, it could see that if it 
simulates N levels of calls, and decides that this was enough to call 
the input infinitely recursive, that at the N+1 call (that it won't get 
to but a CORRECT COMPLETE emulator would), the emulator it is emulating 
would reach N calls and do the same as it is, and thus showing that it 
was wrong to make that decision.

The ONLY way that the correct emulation of the input never reaches the 
ret instruction is if H actually never aborts its emulation, and thus 
never actually gives the answer that the input is non-halting.

So, the ONLY H that creates a non-halting input is the H that fails to 
give the answer that is only correct for that H.

Your brain just doesn't seem to be able to keep enough information to 
handle the levels that happen in this problem.

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

Thread

Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-03 17:17 -0500
  Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-03 18:50 -0400
  Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-06-04 00:35 +0100
    Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-03 18:56 -0500
      Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-03 20:20 -0400
        Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-03 22:51 -0500
          Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 03:01 -0700
            Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 10:11 -0500
              Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 11:38 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 10:51 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 12:11 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 11:25 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 13:15 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 12:23 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 14:09 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 13:14 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 14:31 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 13:39 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 14:49 -0400
              Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-04 18:17 +0000
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Alan Mackenzie ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 13:37 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Alan Mackenzie ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 14:54 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Alan Mackenzie ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 14:01 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Alan Mackenzie ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 15:57 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Alan Mackenzie ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-04 19:02 +0000
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 14:28 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 16:05 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] [OT] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-04 17:30 -0600
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-05 13:14 +0300
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 05:34 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 11:12 +0000
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 06:21 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 07:58 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 14:47 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-06-05 16:28 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 16:34 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 15:44 +0000
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 16:49 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:22 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:28 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:35 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:50 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:56 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 12:01 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:19 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:27 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 12:58 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:13 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:14 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 17:46 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 13:05 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:22 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:26 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:17 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:17 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:30 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:33 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:47 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:56 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 16:09 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 21:23 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 16:32 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-06 16:10 +0300
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-06 17:47 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-06-05 18:44 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:48 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:29 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:53 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 16:34 +0000
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:38 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:41 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:42 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:54 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:58 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 13:07 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:23 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:20 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 17:04 +0000
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:17 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:37 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:57 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:17 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 18:07 +0000
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:19 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:32 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:34 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:49 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 19:42 +0000
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-06 16:03 +0300
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:24 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:18 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:38 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:44 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:54 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-05 18:56 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) [ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 13:07 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) [ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:29 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 12:14 +0000
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-05 13:38 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-05 16:17 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 10:59 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:29 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 10:57 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:31 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:39 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:59 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 12:02 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:31 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 13:35 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:54 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 13:57 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 14:09 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:25 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 14:33 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:43 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:24 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-06-05 15:46 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 15:16 +0000
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:10 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-06-05 21:07 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 15:15 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 21:28 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 15:36 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 16:44 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 16:38 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 15:41 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 16:57 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-05 15:59 -0600
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-06-06 00:59 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-05 18:24 -0600
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-06 01:40 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-05 18:44 -0600
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 20:03 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 21:59 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 21:14 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 22:44 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-06-06 02:58 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 21:11 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 22:20 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ brand new computer science ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 21:37 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ brand new computer science ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 22:52 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ brand new computer science ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 22:03 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ brand new computer science ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 23:26 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ Ordinary software engineering ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 22:41 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ Ordinary software engineering ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-06 00:17 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ Ordinary software engineering ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-06 10:28 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ Ordinary software engineering ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-06 21:04 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 22:15 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 21:22 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 22:38 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Mike Terry ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 19:27 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Mike Terry ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 20:56 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ members of c/c++ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-07 20:04 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ members of c/c++ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-07 22:45 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Mike Terry ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-06 17:49 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Mike Terry ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-06 11:59 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:07 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:12 +0100
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:15 -0500
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:45 -0400
                Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:41 -0400
          Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 06:27 -0400
            Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 10:28 -0500
              Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 11:51 -0400
  Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-06-04 00:36 +0100

csiph-web