Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #104382
| 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 | 2024-05-05 12:50 -0400 |
| Organization | i2pn2 (i2pn.org) |
| Message-ID | <v18dcb$5asq$1@i2pn2.org> (permalink) |
| References | (29 earlier) <v16nfc$1gasi$1@dont-email.me> <v16s30$2oq7$4@i2pn2.org> <v16tp4$1l8ug$1@dont-email.me> <v17peu$2oq8$5@i2pn2.org> <v187m6$1ts5b$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 5/5/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
Yep, but that requirement to answer after some period of time doesn't
mean that they know the correct answer at that point.
Just because you accepted the task of doing the impossible, doesn't give
you the ability to claim a wrong answer is right.
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
Nope.
It is clear you don't understand what the textbooks actually say.
You have admitted that much, that you were surprised to learn the actual
meaning of some of the fundamental terms.
You can't "extrapolate" from something you don't understand.
>
> 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.
Nope.
>
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>
>
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