Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #104354
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Date | 2024-05-04 22:49 -0400 |
| Organization | i2pn2 (i2pn.org) |
| Message-ID | <v16s30$2oq7$4@i2pn2.org> (permalink) |
| References | (28 earlier) <v16jd1$1fk82$1@dont-email.me> <v16kou$2oq8$3@i2pn2.org> <v16l3c$1ftgf$1@dont-email.me> <v16m1a$2oq8$4@i2pn2.org> <v16nfc$1gasi$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 5/4/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/4/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/4/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are doing better than Alan on this though he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single clue about what execution traces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are or how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should read "How to make friends and influence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people" by Dale
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carnegie. You may not care about the former, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you sure are trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter. Hint: telling nasty lies about people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not effective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The alternative of disparaging my work without even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is far worse because it meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required for libel and defamation cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. There have got to be limits on what one spends
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones time on. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less saying that I <am> wrong without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said <is> defamatory. Saying that you believe that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis that I do not seem to have credibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not defamatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been maintaining false things over the years to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a degree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be a waste of time suddenly to expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brilliant insights from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. For example, you insist that robustly proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical theorems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are false, and your "reasoning" hardly merits the word.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Execution Trace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulation invariant:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet saying that the above is false <is> defamatory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with ordinary skill in the art of C programming can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is true by verifying that the execution trace is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say it is false by either not verifying that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace is correct or not knowing what execution traces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are <is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defamatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it HAS been proven incorrect and YOU are the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disregarding the evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess I could file defamatory claims against you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may be the case that you did bury another rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your rhetoric and ad hominem attacks that were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vigorously attempting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get away with the strawman deception change the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject "rebuttal".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But very close to my first part of the reply I indicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there WAS a detailed description of this at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end, and you replied to that mention, saying that since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement was categorically true it would be easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to refute, and then you just didn't do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you post the time/date stamp I will carefully examine it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you do that it seems safe to assume that it was only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same ruse as this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every D NEVER simulated by H* (as shown above)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is definitely not *Every D simulated by H* (also shown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So. I guess you ADHD made you forget what you were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about and made yourself just into a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU choosing to ignore it, just shows that you are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really interested in an actual honest dialog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess it doesn't matter to you what is actually true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you are going to just assume what you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A reasonable person cannot be reasonably expected to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wade through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of that especially when one of these "rebuttals"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *D is simulated by H* to mean *D is NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't what distracted you in that message.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> *Every D simulated by H* that cannot possibly stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One shows a reckless-disregard-of-the-truth when they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "interpret"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *D is NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But 0 steps is a number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I did not say any number of steps*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> *Every D simulated by H* that cannot possibly stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITHOUT DEFINING EXACTLY WHAT "SIMULATED" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) You have already acknowledged that you what it means
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by all the times that you did agree that D simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reaches its own line 06 and halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, D simulated by THIS H (and a very restricted family of
>>>>>>>>>>>> related programs), as you have defined it, will not reach
>>>>>>>>>>>> its own line 06.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have said this many hundreds of times because this
>>>>>>>>>>> shell-game deception has been ridiculous
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This happens as either said H abort their simulation before
>>>>>>>>>>>> the program gets there, or they create an H that just never
>>>>>>>>>>>> returns an answer to H(D,D) and thus fail to be a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>> These are two distinct parts of your "family" of H that you
>>>>>>>>>>>> like to talk about, that you need to be a bit imprecise
>>>>>>>>>>>> about so you can try to mix them up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When N steps of D are simulated by the directly executed H
>>>>>>>>>>> where N is 1 to 1,000,000 no simulated D every reaches past
>>>>>>>>>>> its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When N steps of D are simulated by the directly executed H
>>>>>>>>>>> where N is 1 to 1,000,000 and H aborts its simulation all of
>>>>>>>>>>> the nested simulations (if any) immediately totally stop
>>>>>>>>>>> running.
>>>>>>>>>>> No simulated H ever returns any value to any simulated D.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) What could simulated possibly mean besides the C
>>>>>>>>>>>>> source-code
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of D being interpreted by a C interpreter or the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine-language
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of D being emulated by an x86 emulator?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, so why doesn't H do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We are not talking about my implemented H we are talking about
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, H doesn't actually simulate the call H
>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction, which should do what the instruction does, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> enter H, or at least do the equivalent results of calling
>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) which is to return 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Typically, to simulate something means to determine what it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will do when it is actually done, but you like to claim that
>>>>>>>>>>>> H's simulation of the input doesn't need to match the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the program described to it, so clearly you are
>>>>>>>>>>>> not using simulate in the conventional meanings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have EXPLICITLY claimed that just becuase D(D) Halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that H simulating the description of this
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine can't be correct when it says it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it is clear that you somehow have rejected some of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> essential characteristic of what a "simulation" means, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> refuse to actually define it. The likely cause is that you
>>>>>>>>>>>> know you CAN'T precisely define it, as you can't make weasle
>>>>>>>>>>>> words to allow the illogical conclusion that you make for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the call to H being simulated, without makeing to too
>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious that something is very broken with your system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All of the above is based on the false assumption that we are
>>>>>>>>>>> talking about something other than this:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We are not talking about my implemented H we are talking about
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But what do you mean be "Simulated".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What in the definition of simulated allows a call to H that
>>>>>>>>>> will return 0 be simulated as "never returns"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You already understand that infinite recursion never returns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, trivially, since it isn't infinite if it does return.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, a recursion call loop that has NOTHING in the loop that can
>>>>>>>> break it, becomes infinite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You already understand that recursive simulation is isomorphic
>>>>>>>>> to infinite recursion so I can't see how you can say that you
>>>>>>>>> don't understand these things an be sincere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But only for UNCONDITIONAL simulation, which H doesn't do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion(N);
>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK we are down to one single point at a time, when that point is
>>>>>>> divided into ten more points only one of them at a time we keep
>>>>>>> dividing them until your rebuttal looks like ridiculous nonsense
>>>>>>> to everyone including yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ONLY point right now is that H(Infinite_Recursion, (ptr)5));
>>>>>>> is correct when it reports that Infinite_Recursion() never halts
>>>>>>> on the basis that Infinite_Recursion simulated by H never reaches
>>>>>>> its return statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, since Infinite_Recursion has a full unconditional loop back
>>>>>> to the original point, it will be a non-halting program and thus
>>>>>> no correct simulation of it can reach an end, because the program
>>>>>> it is simulating will never reach an end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But H does not simulate it forever its simulation
>>>>> of Infinite_Recursion() is conditional. How it is
>>>>> that Infinite_Recursion() never halts when H stops
>>>>> simulating it?
>>>>
>>>> Becuase, as you don't seem to understand, the behavior of programs
>>>> is what they do as ideal mathematical objects on the ideal
>>>> mathematical machine they are concidered to be run on, NOT what some
>>>> simulation of them shows.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah so you disagree with UTM's why do disagree with UTM's ?
>>> We must stay on this single point until it is fully addressed.
>>> If it is divided into subpoints the same thing goes for each subpoint.
>>
>> Why do you say I disagree with UTMs?
>>
>
> The quoted paragraph that I am referring to.
> If you disagree with yourself on this paragraph please elaborate.
If H doesn't simulate it forever, it just isn't a UTM.
Note, you CAN'T just "Stipulate" that a given machine IS a UTM except by
defining that it works just like a UTM, which means, for one thing, it
can NEVER abort its simulation, not even after determining that it will
simulate this input forever.
You seem to have a trouble understanding that definitions actually
define what they define, and something that doesn't meet the
requirements can't be considered to be the thing it isn't.
And, you H ISN'T a UTM if it aborts its simulation and answer.
>
> I want you to specify all of the cases where a UTM simulation
> of an input is wrong.
>
A UTM simulation of the input CAN'T be wrong, because if a simulator
differs from the actual behavior of the program described by the input,
the simulator is NOT a UTM.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the terms, or presume that
you can assume that something can be something it isn't.
>
>> I UTM is DEFINED that it produces the exact same result as the direct
>> execution of the machine. A machine is only a UTM if it does that (and
>> you can't stipulate that a machine is a UTM if it doesn't do that)
>>
>> A program is a UTM *IF AND ONLY IF* the results it produces ALWAYS
>> exactly matches the behavior of the direct execution of the program
>> descirbed to it.
>>
>> Thus, BY DEFINITION, a UTM can not "abort" its simulation, as the UTM
>> of a non-halting program must be non-halting (and not just saying
>> "non-halting").
>>
>> A UTM doesn't "describe" what the input program does, it recreates the
>> behavior.
>>
>> YOU seem to have a misunderstanding on this, as you like to call your
>> H a "UTM" even though it fails to meet the definition.
>>
>> Of course, that is because you don't understand the definition, of the
>> definition of definitions.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> As I have mentioned MAMY times, you seem to have a fundamental
>>>> confusion between the RUNNING of the program, and the SIMULATION of it.
>>>>
>>>> This seems to go back to your lack of understand what Truth actually
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RUNNING is what happens when it is carried out completely correctly,
>>>> as with a real correct processor which is left to run, or on the
>>>> mathematical model, that runs until it finishes (even if never)
>>>>
>>>> SIMULATING, in the proper case, means simulating the steps of the
>>>> program until you can correctly determine the answer for what you
>>>> are tying to do the simulation. IF it is about the behavior of
>>>> actually running the program, as is the job of a Halt Decider, then
>>>> it doesn't matter if the simulation is stopped at some point, but if
>>>> the simulation was able to actually PROVE the behavior of the actual
>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>> With Infinite_Recursion, there ARE proof steps that can be do to
>>>> atually formally prove that this program can NEVER reach a final
>>>> state, and thus, a properly designed H can correctly abort it
>>>> simulation and say the program represented by the input does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> Note, This logic has NOTHING to do with "The input simulated by the
>>>> Decideer" type questions, but is ALWAYS asking about the behavior of
>>>> the original machine as run.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to try to define some meaning into your gobbledygook of
>>>> "D simulated by H", then YOU need to figure out what you can't
>>>> figure out how to handle even these trivial cases, you have a LOT of
>>>> work in front of you,
>>>>
>>>> So, if YOU are questioning why H can be correct saying its
>>>> simulation of Infinite-Recursion would be non-halting, why do you
>>>> think it is correct about D?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All other points are ignored until this point is
>>>>> fully addressed.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, YOU need to decide how you want to define this,
>>>>
>>>> If your criteria is NOT about the actual behavior of the actual
>>>> program, YOU need to figure out what you want, and how to define it,
>>>> THEN you can try to show why this new condition has any actual
>>>> practical purpose.
>>>>
>>>> Just makinging something very loosely related to halting decidable,
>>>> isn't likely going to win many people over.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To go forward a step (ignore if you please, but I see where you
>>>>>> are trying to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void Infinite_Simulation(ptr p)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> UTM(p, p);
>>>>>> return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> will also be an "infinte behavior" program when looked at as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H(Infinite_Simulation, Infinite_Simulation)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as the FULL loop (including through the UTM) is unconditional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void X(ptr p)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> H(p,p)
>>>>>> return
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is NOT the same if H(X,X) will ever decide to abort and return a
>>>>>> decision, thinking it is like the Infinite_Simulation case, as the
>>>>>> FULL Loop, which includes the code of H, is not unconditional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this is true as if we just run X(X), then it will call H(X,X)
>>>>>> which, since you say H(X,X) will eventually decide to abort its
>>>>>> simulation and return, so X(X) WILL reach its final state, and
>>>>>> that says that one of my proposals could detect that and reach
>>>>>> past the call.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, this is NOT the "imposible program", as it doesn't have the
>>>>>> contray stuff at the end, but your H can't know that, so its logic
>>>>>> must be wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 21:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-17 23:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:31 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 20:11 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 21:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 21:25 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 22:50 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 22:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 07:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:18 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 11:37 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:05 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:11 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 11:26 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:03 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:54 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 10:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:40 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 15:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 11:19 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 13:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:16 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 09:38 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:52 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 19:20 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 01:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 08:56 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 10:20 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 11:39 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 10:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 19:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:17 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 20:49 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 22:00 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 23:38 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:56 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:02 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:50 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 14:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:19 -0400
D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 19:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 20:26 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 20:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 22:18 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 22:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 23:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 23:07 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 07:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 09:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 12:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:52 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 15:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 14:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:24 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 16:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:56 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 18:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 19:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 20:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:29 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:26 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 18:16 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:40 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 11:52 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 12:43 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 12:55 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 09:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 11:54 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 06:38 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 17:57 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 22:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 10:56 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:46 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:11 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:06 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 14:39 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 15:34 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 10:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 10:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:57 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 17:14 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 12:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 11:31 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:15 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 13:46 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 16:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 16:18 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 17:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 17:08 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 18:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 19:32 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:07 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 21:05 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 20:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 22:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 22:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-05 12:36 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:00 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 15:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:27 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:46 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:28 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 16:57 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:37 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-05 13:11 -0600
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:41 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:54 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:33 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 15:47 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 15:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:09 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:57 -0400
your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:38 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:05 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:27 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:53 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:06 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 18:50 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 07:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 10:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:50 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:01 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:51 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-05 09:33 +0100
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-05 10:02 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:54 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-05 17:28 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 08:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 12:11 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:12 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:58 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-05 12:39 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:41 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:15 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 10:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:22 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 07:31 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 09:48 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 11:10 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 10:27 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 12:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 13:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:12 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:46 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:01 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:24 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:08 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:55 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:21 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 00:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 07:34 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:51 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:23 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 14:04 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 16:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 16:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:39 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 00:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 07:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 07:17 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 08:53 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 12:41 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:37 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:42 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 14:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 17:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 16:38 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 19:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 21:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 23:35 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 07:35 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 10:39 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:00 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 22:02 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 23:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:09 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 12:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 10:45 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 13:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:33 -0400
csiph-web