Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike is not paying attention Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Olcott is too stupid to know that only the DDD correctly simulated by onlly the HHH that doesn't abort cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated,by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated,by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? HHH computes the mapping from its input finite sting to the actual behavior specified by this finite string Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- HHH never reaches its halt state so never decides, or it decides wrong. Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- partial simulation never reaches its halt state, but the actual behavior of the actual program does Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- partial simulation never reaches its halt state, but full behavior does ---natural number mapping Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Which if HHH returns, will be halting. Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it ---