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

Groups > comp.theory > #51943

Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ]

From Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory
Subject Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ]
Date 2022-06-05 21:07 +0100
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <t7j2et$gmt$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References (8 earlier) <t7i32v$j5n$1@news.muc.de> <V4qdnY-VjKcsDAH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t7i6o1$1bk1$1@news.muc.de> <t7ifji$hn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t7ihd1$1qaq$1@news.muc.de>

Show all headers | View raw

On 05/06/2022 16:16, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>> On 05/06/2022 13:14, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/5/2022 6:12 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/5/2022 5:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-06-04 19:28:19 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>>>>>>>> A Turing machine is said to halt whenever it reaches a
>>>>>>>> configuration for which δ is not defined; this is possible because
>>>>>>>> δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume that no
>>>>>>>> transitions are defined for any final state so the Turing machine
>>>>>>>> will halt whenever it enters a final state.  (Linz:1990:234)
> 
>>>>>>>> Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
>>>>>>>> Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company.
> 
>>>>>>>> When translated into ordinary software engineering terms this means
>>>>>>>> terminated normally. In a C function this means reaching the "ret"
>>>>>>>> instruction.
> 
>>>>>>> The best equivalent to "not defined" is not "ret". Instead, "not
>>>>>>> defined" should include at least:
>>>>>>> - HLT or any other instruction that means 'halt'
>>>>>>> - any undefined op code
>>>>>>> - any return or pop instruction if the stack is empty
>>>>>>> - an instruction fetch from a location that is not specifiec by the
>>>>>>>      program
>>>>>>> That way the analogy to Linz' definition is much better.
> 
>>>>>>> Mikko
> 
>>>>>> Reaching a final state is merely the Turing machine way of saying
>>>>>> terminated normally. "ret" is the C way of saying the same thing.
> 
>>>>> Sophistry.  What would be the turing machine equivalent of an
>>>>> "abnormal termination" in C?
> 
>>>> An aborted simulation.
> 
>>> There's no such thing on a turing machine.  It either runs and halts,
>>> or it runs forever.
> 
>>> Your aborted simulation is just one final state of a turing machine,
>>> which has thus halted.
> 
>> A TM "aborting" a simulation is just the TM ceasing to calculate
>> computation steps for some computation, and going on to calculate
>> something else instead.  It does not mean:
>> a)  that the TM (doing the simulation) has halted
>> b)  that the simulated computation halts
>> c)  that the simulated computation never halts
> 
> OK.  I've a feeling we're talking more about nice shades of words than
> computer science here, but ....
> 
> If the simulation is the entire turing machine, aborting it will bring
> the TM to a halt state.  If that simulation is merely part of the TM,
> then the word "halt" has a different meaning when applied to that
> simulation part from when applied to the entire TM.  I'm not even sure
> what you mean when you say a part of a TM has halted or not halted.

We are clearly talking at cross purposes - I never talked about /part/ of a TM halting, and like 
you, I can't work out what that would mean!  I used "halt" only with respect to a computation, 
meaning that the computation halts [there is an n such that computation step n is a TM final state].

Reading what you say very carefully, I think that by your definition of simulation, the simulating 
TM must be a "pure" simulator that does nothing but simulate computation steps until the simulation 
halts, at which point the simulating TM halts (like a UTM).  I get that with that interpretation 
what you said:

<copied from above>
 >>> Your aborted simulation is just one final state of a turing machine,
 >>> which has thus halted.

  makes sense and is correct.  I'd just say I don't think that usage of "simulation" is very useful, 
and is DEFINITELY not what PO is talking about (so it would be wrong if applied PO's posts...)

My use of "simulation" is broader: it's simply the activity performed by a TM which consists of 
calculating computation steps of some given computation.  As such it's just a part of the TM logic. 
A TM's typical use of simulation might be something like "..the TM simulates the computation for n 
steps, and if the simulation halts during those n steps, the TM [blah blah], /otherwise/ the TM 
[blah blah blah]...".  Just about every reference in the literature I can recall is something like that.

So... to be 100% clear on what I said:

<copied from above>
 >> A TM "aborting" a simulation is just the TM ceasing to calculate
 >> computation steps for some computation, and going on to calculate
 >> something else instead.

E.g. in PO's P, after P aborts its simulation of P(P), the TM either halts or enters an infinite 
loop.  (That logic is not part of the simulation, IMO.)

 >> It does *NOT* mean:
 >> a)  that the TM (doing the simulation) has halted

obviously, because now P has gone on to something else...

 >> b)  that the simulated computation halts
 >> c)  that the simulated computation never halts

obviously - in general different exacmples of a simulated computation P(I) might halt or never halt, 
and this is unaffected by a simulator's decision to simulate no further computation steps.  [The TM 
may have spotted some pattern in the simulated computation which implies P(I) never halts - that is 
a separate matter, but for sure the mere act of "aborting" the simulation doesn't imply P(I) never 
halts, or imply that it halts...

Put yet another way, when a TM stops calculating TM steps (aka aborts its simulation), NOTHING 
HALTS: not the simulating TM, not the simulated computation, and NOT ANY PART OF EITHER OF THOSE. 
(Like you say, what would part of a TM halting mean?)


Mike.

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