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

Groups > comp.theory > #51967

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

From Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory
Subject Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ]
Date 2022-06-05 18:24 -0600
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <t7jhfn$kfc$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (11 earlier) <t7ifji$hn8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t7ihd1$1qaq$1@news.muc.de> <t7j2et$gmt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t7j8vh$2i1$1@dont-email.me> <t7jg0k$1qko$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/5/2022 5:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 05/06/2022 22:59, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 6/5/2022 2:07 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> 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?)
>>
>> I think of a TM and an input string as defining a sequence (an ordered 
>> list). The elements of the sequence are pairs of a TM state name and a 
>> string representing the "tape" contents when the state was entered. 
>> Note that this view has no character of animation in it and makes the 
>> definition of the halt predicate (H) trivial:
>>
>> H(TM,STRING) = If length of TM(STRING) is finite then TRUE else FALSE.
> 
> Yes, that's equivalent to what I said (or at least meant).  Your 
> sequence is my computation steps. Formally, these would be defined 
> inductively via the rule to go from step n to step n+1.  (Not an 
> animation, but the induction gives some /sense/ of step-by-step 
> calculation, and a simulator will follow this, starting at step 1, then 
> calculate step 2 and so on.  Still, I agree the entire sequence [the 
> "computation"] exists as one timeless structure.  Too abstract for PO...)
> 
>>
>> A simulator animates the production of the sequence and that causes 
>> some difficulties in the same way that elaborating an infinite sum or 
>> sequence does in math classes. An (ultimate) value only exists if 
>> there is some notation of convergence or limit which typically is the 
>> case with examples used in a math class. There is no definition of 
>> convergence or limit with the sequence defined by TM(STRING); rather, 
>> we simply ask about the last pair if the sequence is finite.
> 
> 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.

> tl;dr : who cares :)
> 
> My terminology would be that it's "simulating" the computation (just for 
> 10 steps) - then it stops simulating and does something else.  Obviously 
> I wouldn't describe it as "correctly" simulating, because nobody 
> considers incorrect simulations, so the word would be redundant!  Others 
> have referred to that as an "incorrect simulation" because it stops 
> calculating computation steps before a final state is reached.  [Or 
> maybe it's "incorrect" because after it aborts the simulation, H 
> proceeds to return the wrong result?  ..which is considered part of the 
> simulation?"  ...  Well, there are loads of ok ways to analyse and 
> phrase what's going on I guess, as long as we're consistent.  But nobody 
> is going to put in all the work required to achieve a consensus on this 
> here, especially with PO who couldn't understand the distinctions.  ]

I'm not looking for consensus with this group. While I think that 
animating concepts in math is a good pedagogical method to awaken 
understanding, it is essential to note that infinite ordered things 
exist, to the extent that they do exist, all at once and do not develop 
in time as some sequence of events. If one does not separate the "as if" 
teaching method from "this is the definition", you get genuine 
misunderstanding as well as the half ass stuff you read in this news 
group. Of course, the animation method suggests some interesting 
"proofs" of ideas (such as the Hilbert Hotel) and sometimes some ways of 
visualizing results that are hard to come by otherwise.
-- 
Jeff Barnett

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