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 13:37 -0600 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <tkosme$1qpn$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (22 earlier) <tkonum$17cpp$1@dont-email.me> <7xRbL.11594$o6Z5.1319@fx07.iad> <20221112184207.000004d1@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <d3SbL.14322$%VI9.13847@fx34.iad> <20221112192618.00003dec@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 11/12/2022 1:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 14:00:21 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/22 1:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 13:24:00 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> 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.
>>>> You seem to be INTENTIONALLY using deceptive terminology to spread
>>>> you lies.
>>>>
>>>> So, I suppose you can correctly say that the input doesn't stop
>>>> within its first 7 instructions, but that doesn't mean anything.
>>>>
>>>> Since you make a claim about a COMPLETE simulation (the it will
>>>> never end) you need to establish THAT fact (and you can't change
>>>> the input to do it, which includes the H the E calls).
>>>>
>>>> YOU FAIL
>>>>
>>>> You show that you don't understand what you are talking about and
>>>> seem to actually think that you are proving something by using
>>>> wrong defintions.
>>>>
>>>> You are just showing how stupid you are.
>>>
>>> Again with the ad hominem attacks: "liar", "stupid" etc. You are
>>> not very good at his are you, Mr Damon.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> So, you don't understand the meaning of ad hominem. The fallacy of
>> ad-hominem is to say the person must be wrong because they are a "X".
>> That is not what my statement is, but that he is wrong for a
>> specified logical reason. I then point out that BECAUSE he is stating
>> these incorrect statements, he is a liar and stupid. That is a valid
>> logical deduction.
>>
>> YOU are showing you lack of understanding.
>
> I fully understand what constitutes an ad hominem; YOU are using a
> DISGUISED ad hominem by using insults after the fact in an attempt to
> strengthen your argument. A DISGUISED ad hominem is still an ad
> hominem if you use it as part of your argument, which you are.
>
> To be clear, if you called Olcott "big nose" rather than "stupid" then
> that would just be an insult however calling someone "stupid" implies
> you think they have a low IQ which is a characteristic that directly
> relates to their ability to argue/debate (unlike "big nose") and so is
> a logical fallacy, albeit a disguised one.
>
> /Flibble
>
Good job you nailed that much better than I could have.
--
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