Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: Simulating halt decider applied to a simpler input |
| Date | 2022-11-12 12:45 -0600 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <tkopjk$fah$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (20 earlier) <6PPbL.71121$Jjx8.38057@fx15.iad> <tkojg4$172nl$2@dont-email.me> <_9RbL.5611$gBW5.2085@fx06.iad> <tkonum$17cpp$1@dont-email.me> <7xRbL.11594$o6Z5.1319@fx07.iad> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 11/12/2022 12:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/12/22 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> No, that says that H did a correct PARTIAL simulation of the input.
Yes that is correct now we can move on to the next point.
void E(void (*x)())
{
H(x, x);
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(E, E));
}
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
We can see that the seventh instruction of E correctly simulated by H
would call H to simulate itself again.
We can also see that there are no instructions from the beginning of E
to its call to H that would prevent this process from repeating an
unlimited number of times.
These two things taken together conclusively prove that H would be
correct when it reports that D correctly simulated by H would never
reach its own final state at machine address [00001a18] and terminate
normally.
--
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