Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input |
| Date | 2022-11-12 12:16 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <tkonum$17cpp$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (18 earlier) <20221112150316.000017ea@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <tkofba$16k3v$2@dont-email.me> <6PPbL.71121$Jjx8.38057@fx15.iad> <tkojg4$172nl$2@dont-email.me> <_9RbL.5611$gBW5.2085@fx06.iad> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 11/12/2022 11:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/12/22 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/12/2022 10:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/12/22 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/2022 9:03 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:52:12 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/12/22 9:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:23 -0500
>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/12/22 9:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 19:24:53 -0500
>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 6:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 18:25:58 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 4:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:44:49 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I would have thought given your intelligence you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would also understand that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I say, even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked me, he will still see me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> archives, I want enough evidence to be around to point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out his errors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't actually know what he is talking about, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reveals his ignorance. If he tries to put his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation into explicit words, his errors become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very apparent, I think even to him, so he just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refuses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis. Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> readers are not in my target audience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by H provides H with a correct basis for its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> game can correctly deny this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. Note, such an H doesn't do a correct simulation, so any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguement based on it doing so it just WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The need to abort the simulation is due to the self reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> category error present in the proof; what Olcott is getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong is the mapping of the need to abort the simulation to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decision of non-halting; it needs to instead be mapped to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> INVALID INPUT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, no self reference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> E just has a copy of the H that claim to be deciding it, not a
>>>>>>>>>>>> "reference" to it. Turing Machines do not have the power to
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly express a reference.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if it isn't a self reference then it is infinite copies
>>>>>>>>>>> all the way down so is the same category error manifesting in a
>>>>>>>>>>> different way.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only if the "decider" makes that happen, in which case it isn't
>>>>>>>>>> actually a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we assume a prospective decider exists, then the "Impossible"
>>>>>>>>>> program is simple to make from it, and is given one copy of the
>>>>>>>>>> description of itself, which is also simple to make.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When run it makes a second copy of its description, and then
>>>>>>>>>> calls the decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After that, it is the deciders job to make the decision in finite
>>>>>>>>>> time, by whatever method it wants. If it gets stuck in your
>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop, the decider is just wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The proof shows that what ever answer the decider does give (if
>>>>>>>>>> it gives one) will be wrong, and thus the decider doesn't meet
>>>>>>>>>> the requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No "Self Reference" in sight there only a program being given a
>>>>>>>>>> copy of something that just happens to be its own description.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only place we get any form of "Reference", is when we try to
>>>>>>>>>> ANALYSE or DESIGN the H to try to meet the challenge. There the
>>>>>>>>>> effect of the Self-Reference just lets us see that the task turns
>>>>>>>>>> out be be impossible, so no such program exists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are fractally wrong on all fronts: in the traditional halting
>>>>>>>>> problem proofs based on [Strachey 1965] the program is impossible
>>>>>>>>> not due to self reference or infinite copies but because the input
>>>>>>>>> tries to do the opposite of what the decider decides; the category
>>>>>>>>> error that I have identified is different: it is an error of self
>>>>>>>>> reference and/or infinite copies; it is an error related to the
>>>>>>>>> fact that the input references a decider rather than being related
>>>>>>>>> to what the input does with the decision result of a decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the infinite copies is a error in the Decider, not in
>>>>>>>> Strachey's program. The decider is SUPPOSED to be able to handle
>>>>>>>> ANY input and answer in finite time, If an input causes it to make
>>>>>>>> infinite copies, then the decided just doesn't meet its
>>>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turing Machine can ALWAYS be legally built based on another Turing
>>>>>>>> Machine as a base. The only reason it wouldn't be allowed is if H
>>>>>>>> isn't actually a Turing Machine, so it CAN'T be a category error
>>>>>>>> if H is actualy a Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All your declaration of a "Category Error" here is doing is
>>>>>>>> admitting that your H can't actually be a Turing Machine, but must
>>>>>>>> be of a HIGHER order logic system, which means H fails the
>>>>>>>> requirement to be the needed decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In which case we get infinite turning machines all the way down: yet
>>>>>>> another manifestation of the category error I have identified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where are infinite machines? There is ONE machine being run, either H
>>>>>> or D, and it SIMULATING others, and if we get an infinite sequence of
>>>>>> simulations we have just shown that H was defective because it failed
>>>>>> to answer in finite time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't a category error, but a design error in H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, when we start H, there is exactly two machines present in
>>>>>> representation on the tape, and two is much smaller than infinity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, if,
>>>>>
>>>>> a) H is a copy, and
>>>>> b) H is a Turing Machine, and
>>>>> c) D is an input into H, and
>>>>> d) D references H, and
>>>>> e) H references D,
>>>>>
>>>>> then (d) and (e) repeat ad infinitum so we get infinite Turing
>>>>> Machines
>>>>> all the way down: a manifestation of the category error I have
>>>>> identified.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>> {
>>>> H(x, x);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> The point is
>>>> that D correctly simulated by H would never reach its own last
>>>> instruction and terminate normally after 1 to ∞ steps of correct
>>>> simulation.
>>>>
>>>> When H returns 0 to main() it is indicating
>>>>
>>>> that D correctly simulated by H would never reach its own last
>>>> instruction and terminate normally after 1 to ∞ steps of correct
>>>> simulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except D is NOT correctly simulated by H, so that is a incorrect
>>> statement. When it is correctly simulated by something other than H,
>>> it will come to a final state, showing your statement is wrong.
>> In order for the simulation to actually be incorrect the execution
>> trace of the simulated E must diverge from the behavior that the
>> line-by-line x86 source-code of E specifies.
>
> Right, and since you simulation does NOT continue past the call to H, it
> is "incorrect" in the sense that the actual code does continue past that
> point, so it does not actually match the behavior of that machine.
>
>>
>> The first seven lines of the execution trace of the simulated E
>> exactly match the behavior specified by the first seven lines of the
>> x86 source code of E. This conclusively proves beyond all possible
>> doubt that these first seven lines have been simulated correctly.
>
> Right, so H has correctly done a PARTIAL simulation of its input, which
> does NOT prove the input is non-halting.
>
>>
>> *H correctly determines that E never halts*
>>
>> void E(void (*x)())
>> {
>> H(x, x);
>> }
>>
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(E, E));
>> }
>>
>> _E()
>> [000019d2] 55 push ebp
>> [000019d3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000019d5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [000019d8] 50 push eax
>> [000019d9] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [000019dc] 51 push ecx
>> [000019dd] e8b0f9ffff call 00001392
>> [000019e2] 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [000019e5] 5d pop ebp
>> [000019e6] c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0021) [000019e6]
>>
>> _main()
>> [000019f2] 55 push ebp
>> [000019f3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000019f5] 68d2190000 push 000019d2
>> [000019fa] 68d2190000 push 000019d2
>> [000019ff] e88ef9ffff call 00001392
>> [00001a04] 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [00001a07] 50 push eax
>> [00001a08] 6893060000 push 00000693
>> [00001a0d] e8a0ecffff call 000006b2
>> [00001a12] 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [00001a15] 33c0 xor eax,eax
>> [00001a17] 5d pop ebp
>> [00001a18] c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0039) [00001a18]
>>
>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>> address address data code language
>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>> [000019f2][00102a7c][00000000] 55 push ebp
>> [000019f3][00102a7c][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000019f5][00102a78][000019d2] 68d2190000 push 000019d2 // push E
>> [000019fa][00102a74][000019d2] 68d2190000 push 000019d2 // push E
>> [000019ff][00102a70][00001a04] e88ef9ffff call 00001392 // call H
>>
>> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:112b28
>> Address_of_H:1392
>> [000019d2][00112b14][00112b18] 55 push ebp
>> [000019d3][00112b14][00112b18] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000019d5][00112b14][00112b18] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [000019d8][00112b10][000019d2] 50 push eax // push E
>> [000019d9][00112b10][000019d2] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [000019dc][00112b0c][000019d2] 51 push ecx // push E
>> [000019dd][00112b08][000019e2] e8b0f9ffff call 00001392 // call H
>> H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>
>> H correctly reports that E correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
>> reach its own final state at machine address [000019e6] and terminate
>> normally in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
>>
>>
>
> So you are just admitting you don't understand the Halting Criteria.
>
> The fact that H stops its simulation before it gets to the end does NOT
> prove that the machine being simulated, or a correct and complete
> simultion of the input would be non-halting.
We must handle only one point at a time because you are easily
overwhelmed. You usually cannot even handle one point at a time until
this point is repeated 20 or more times.
The fact that the line-by-line execution trace of the first seven
instructions E simulated by H exactly match the behavior specified by
the first seven instructions of the x86 source-code of E conclusively
proves that these first seven instructions are simulated correctly.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 09:28 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 10:57 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-11 18:36 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 13:43 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 13:16 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 14:30 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 13:39 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 16:07 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 15:15 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 16:44 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-11 21:54 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 16:44 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 18:25 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-11 23:55 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 17:59 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 19:24 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 18:46 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 21:15 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 20:35 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 21:45 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 20:48 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 21:56 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 22:00 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:02 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 08:43 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:06 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 15:12 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:52 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 10:20 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 11:47 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 22:17 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:08 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 08:55 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:02 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 14:09 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:32 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 14:41 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:52 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 15:03 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:26 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 15:38 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:59 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 10:06 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 11:21 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 09:50 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 11:26 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 11:00 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 12:59 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 12:16 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 13:24 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 18:42 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 14:00 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 19:26 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 13:37 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 14:54 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 12:45 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 13:57 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 13:04 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 14:21 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 13:36 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 15:01 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 14:07 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 15:26 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 14:35 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 16:28 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 15:59 -0600
Olcottaholics anonymous Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-11-12 21:25 +0000
E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 16:04 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 17:26 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 16:33 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 17:55 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 17:38 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 19:02 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 19:31 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 21:30 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 22:00 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 23:38 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-12 23:04 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 08:00 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-13 09:39 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 14:34 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-13 13:49 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 15:38 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 14:51 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2022-11-13 16:02 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 15:16 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 16:59 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 16:08 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-13 22:25 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 14:33 -0800
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 16:42 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 18:14 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 17:26 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-13 23:52 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-13 18:00 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 19:33 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 19:29 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-14 19:27 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 13:44 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-14 21:53 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-14 21:53 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-15 17:45 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-15 12:00 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-16 20:04 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-17 17:14 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-17 11:25 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 17:36 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 19:36 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 18:07 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-13 23:30 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 19:37 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-11-14 11:02 +0100
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 03:44 -0800
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-11-14 16:17 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-11-14 11:34 -0700
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-14 13:20 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-14 21:53 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-14 20:00 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-14 21:52 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 18:04 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 17:20 -0600
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-13 19:43 -0500
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-13 05:40 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-13 04:17 +0000
Re: E correctly simulated by H would never reach its last instruction and terminate normally olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-13 12:35 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 18:19 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 13:33 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 09:51 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 14:50 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 16:37 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 18:20 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 17:39 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 18:48 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 18:05 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 19:29 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 18:51 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 21:25 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 20:36 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 21:51 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 20:57 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-11 22:25 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 21:36 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:11 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-11-11 12:56 -0700
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 14:19 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-11-11 18:43 -0700
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 21:06 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-11-11 20:21 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-11 23:35 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:15 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 14:31 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 08:35 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 09:58 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 15:16 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:41 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 15:52 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 11:09 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-11-12 16:42 +0000
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 11:04 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 12:07 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 09:27 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 10:46 -0500
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 10:02 -0600
Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-12 11:14 -0500
csiph-web