Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #104372
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Date | 2024-05-05 10:13 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <v187m6$1ts5b$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (29 earlier) <v16m1a$2oq8$4@i2pn2.org> <v16nfc$1gasi$1@dont-email.me> <v16s30$2oq7$4@i2pn2.org> <v16tp4$1l8ug$1@dont-email.me> <v17peu$2oq8$5@i2pn2.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 5/5/2024 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/4/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/4/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Whoa, Factorial of 5 must simulate forever?
>
> WHy do you say that?
>
Go back and look at the words that I responded to.
>>> If H doesn't simulate it forever, it just isn't a UTM.
Thus when a UTM does not simulate factorial 5 forever it is not a UTM.
> If you reach a final state, then you reached the final state and have
> nothing more to do.
>
That it not what you said.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> None-the-less a TM that correctly simulates N steps
>> cannot be said to have simulated those N steps incorrectly
>> on the basis that it could have simulated N+1 steps.
>
> Right, but neither does it say whether the machine it simulates halts in
> more than N steps or runs forever.
>
Right. The simple fact that H stopped simulating after N steps
proves nothing by itself. However it is dead obvious that simulating
termination analyzer are required to abort their simulation at some
point after they recognize a non-terminating behavior pattern. If
they don't do this they are wrong.
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I get into more nuances than the textbooks bother to discuss.
>> That I get into more nuances than the textbooks bother to discuss
>> does not make me wrong.
>
> No, you just get it wrong because you don't know what the textbooks
> actually say the rules of the theory are.
>
I do know all of this stuff and then extend beyond it.
You are saying that I am wrong about things that are a correct
extrapolation from what the textbooks say.
This is just like Fulton's Folly. We never had steamboats
before thus it is ridiculous non-sense to believe that we
can possibly have them in the future.
>>
>>> 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 am trying to provide the basis for you to correctly extrapolate
>> beyond what the textbooks say. Many people act as if all new ideas
>> are always wrong because these new ideas do not precisely parrot
>> existing ideas. There really is a correct extrapolation from existing
>> ideas to new ideas and these new ideas are not inherently incorrect.
>
> But then you could show how your answers actually do fit the
> requirements of the actual theory, which you can't.
>
Extrapolations beyond what is known cannot be fully justified
within what is known.
> You can't actually extrapolate past the textbooks if you don't know what
> the textbooks say.
>
I have never made any mistake on this in years. Initially I was
shocked that C can do things that do not count as computable functions.
I finally have a good measure for discerning which C functions are
computable functions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
I checked that with experts on technical forums.
I also have Mike to thank for validating that a UTM can look into to
any details of the internal state of its simulated Turing Machine
Description as it progresses through the steps of simulating this TMD
and still be a computable function.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> The fact that you show a failure to understand so many basic terms shows
> that you don't understand what the textbooks are saying.
>
Try and point this out and it will probably shown your own confusion
about what I am saying. You do seem to have a very hard time paying
complete attention to every word in a sentence. I make this mistake
sometimes too. I fix it by reading and rereading what I said.
> You seem to be working off of a quick scan of the Cliff Notes of the
> textbook and then guessing what it must have said.
>
Point out specific mistakes or your above assessment will be
construed as baseless defamation.
--
Copyright 2024 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
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