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 13:36 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <tkoskf$17pff$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (23 earlier) <7xRbL.11594$o6Z5.1319@fx07.iad> <tkopjk$fah$1@gioia.aioe.org> <90SbL.14321$%VI9.7406@fx34.iad> <tkoqo1$ta1$1@gioia.aioe.org> <LmSbL.74300$Jjx8.17367@fx15.iad> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 11/12/2022 1:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/12/22 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/12/2022 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/12/22 1:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No, E calls H which will HALT DECIDER (by simulation) its input.
>> Try again this time don't use a noun as a verb gibberish.
>>
>
> So you can't understand that the call to H is supposed to Halt Decide
> its input?
>
> Minor typo, not gibberish like what you post that might follow correct
> syntax but has a lack of semantics.
>
> Do you agree that H(E,E) does return 0 when called?
Again you leap ahead past the point at hand. Doing this makes sure that
the point at hand is never addressed and you false assumptions continue.
It is agreed that H does correctly simulate the first seven instructions
of E.
The first seven instructions of E correctly simulated by H show that E
would call H to simulate itself again and that no instructions from the
beginning of E to its call to H can possibly prevent this from repeating
an unlimited number of times.
--
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