Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Halting Problem Solved? ( H(P,P)==0 is correct ) [ global halt decider ] |
| Date | 2021-07-21 12:26 -0600 |
| Organization | Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism |
| Message-ID | <sd9ota$bkj$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (20 earlier) <sd80he$tne$1@dont-email.me> <X9OdnUDHZ4KAEmr9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sd8465$dni$1@dont-email.me> <5aWdnXgmUdTV0mX9nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <H6udnUPfaLa4xWX9nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
On 2021-07-21 11:23, olcott wrote:
> On 7/21/2021 11:45 AM, 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.
>>>
>>
>> That really does add much better focus to the dialogue, good job. This
>> allows a much more precise measure of the correctness of the halt
>> status decision of H on its input.
>>
>> Every input to H that never reaches its final state (whether or not H
>> aborts its simulation of this input) is an input that H correctly
>> decides never halts.
>>
>> This works just fine for infinite loops, infinite recursion and P(P).
>> We can know that H(P,P)==0 is correct because the x86 execution trace
>> of P(P) conclusively proves that it never reaches a final state.
>>
>> When the P of int main(){ P(P); } does reach a final state it only
>> does so because H(P,P)==0 is correct, thus deriving a paradox rather
>> than a contradiction.
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>
>
> When we apply a global halt decider to int main() { P(P); } (the exact
> same code as the local halt decider) it aborts its simulation of the
> P(P) in main(). The only reason for the prior paradox is that part of
> the full computation of P(P) had been hidden from the view of H. When it
> is no longer hidden then the paradox goes away.
Your idea of a 'global decider' is simply rubbish. The Linz proof
requires that H_Hat be derived from your halt decider. If you create a
new 'global' decider, then you need to create a new H_Hat to go along
with it.
And when we run P(P), nothing is being "hidden" from H *because H isn't
even running*. P(P) is running and P(P) halts.
If P(P) halts when you run it, that is *definitive* proof that P(P) halts.
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
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