Grups
Inicia la sessió
Grups
comp.theory
Converses
Quant a
Envia suggeriments
Ajuda
info
Grups de Google ja no admet publicacions ni subscripcions noves de Usenet. El contingut antic es pot continuar consultant.
Dismiss
Més informació
comp.theory
Contacta amb els propietaris i els gestors
1-30 de 46504
Marca-les totes com a llegides
Informa d'aquest grup
0 files seleccionades
polcot2
, …
olcott
39
22 de febr.
Converting Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ to its self contradictory version
On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2
no llegida,
Converting Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩ ⟨H⟩ to its self contradictory version
On 2/22/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-22 02:43:15 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2
22 de febr.
olcott
, …
Mikko
11
22 de febr.
Ben Bacarisse inaccurate disparagement of my work
On 2/22/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-21 18:53:32 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2
no llegida,
Ben Bacarisse inaccurate disparagement of my work
On 2/22/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-21 18:53:32 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2
22 de febr.
Ben Bacarisse
, …
olcott
42
22 de febr.
Linz's proofs.
On 2/22/2024 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-20 14:16:55 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2
no llegida,
Linz's proofs.
On 2/22/2024 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-02-20 14:16:55 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2
22 de febr.
immibis
, …
Richard Damon
24
22 de febr.
I got a reply from Professor Macias [he does not know about Turing machines]
On 2/22/24 12:19 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote: >> On 22/02/24 03
no llegida,
I got a reply from Professor Macias [he does not know about Turing machines]
On 2/22/24 12:19 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/21/2024 11:10 PM, immibis wrote: >> On 22/02/24 03
22 de febr.
wij
, …
Ben Bacarisse
3
21 de febr.
ℙ≠ℕℙ proof ('official')
wij <wyni...@gmail.com> writes: Your argument is just the usual "I can't think how it
no llegida,
ℙ≠ℕℙ proof ('official')
wij <wyni...@gmail.com> writes: Your argument is just the usual "I can't think how it
21 de febr.
Dan Cross
, …
Richard Damon
194
20 de febr.
Purpose of this group?
On 2/20/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/20/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/19/24
no llegida,
Purpose of this group?
On 2/20/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/20/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/19/24
20 de febr.
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
50
19 de febr.
Linz H' is merely the self-contradictory form of Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩
On 2/19/2024 6:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 2/19/24 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 2/18/
no llegida,
Linz H' is merely the self-contradictory form of Linz H applied to ⟨H⟩
On 2/19/2024 6:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 2/19/24 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 2/18/
19 de febr.
immibis
19 de febr.
x=2-x is self-referential, therefore unsolvable
"x=2-x. What is x (natural number)?" is self-referential. Self-referential questions have
no llegida,
x=2-x is self-referential, therefore unsolvable
"x=2-x. What is x (natural number)?" is self-referential. Self-referential questions have
19 de febr.
olcott
, …
immibis
67
18 de febr.
Linz Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the self-contradictory form of Olcott Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩
On 18/02/24 23:36, olcott wrote: > On 2/18/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/18/24
no llegida,
Linz Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the self-contradictory form of Olcott Ȟ applied to ⟨Ȟ⟩
On 18/02/24 23:36, olcott wrote: > On 2/18/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/18/24
18 de febr.
wij
,
immibis
4
18 de febr.
ℙ!=ℕℙ proof
On 18/02/24 10:51, wij wrote: > On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 20:59 +0100, immibis wrote: >> On 2/02
no llegida,
ℙ!=ℕℙ proof
On 18/02/24 10:51, wij wrote: > On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 20:59 +0100, immibis wrote: >> On 2/02
18 de febr.
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
181
16 de febr.
When the Linz Ĥ is required to report on its own behavior both answers are wrong
On 2/16/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/16/24
no llegida,
When the Linz Ĥ is required to report on its own behavior both answers are wrong
On 2/16/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/16/2024 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/16/24
16 de febr.
wij
, …
immibis
3
16 de febr.
A problem about prime number
On 16/02/24 22:12, wij wrote: > I just wrote a short c++ program to test prime numbers. The
no llegida,
A problem about prime number
On 16/02/24 22:12, wij wrote: > I just wrote a short c++ program to test prime numbers. The
16 de febr.
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
66
12 de febr.
Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem
On 2/11/24 11:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/11/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/11/
no llegida,
Refuting the Tarski Undefinability Theorem
On 2/11/24 11:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/11/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/11/
12 de febr.
Ross Finlayson
11 de febr.
Re: Question words, and what's an answer
On 08/05/2023 05:27 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 9:29:01 PM UTC-7, Ross
no llegida,
Re: Question words, and what's an answer
On 08/05/2023 05:27 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 9:29:01 PM UTC-7, Ross
11 de febr.
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
27
5 de febr.
To understand the misconception of mathematical incompleteness...
On 2/5/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/5/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/4/24 11
no llegida,
To understand the misconception of mathematical incompleteness...
On 2/5/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/5/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/4/24 11
5 de febr.
immibis
, …
Richard Damon
41
5 de febr.
Why does Olcott continue to ignore the finite/infinite sequence formulation of the halting problem?
On 2/5/24 2:41 PM, immibis wrote: > On 1/02/24 04:26, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/31/24 9:
no llegida,
Why does Olcott continue to ignore the finite/infinite sequence formulation of the halting problem?
On 2/5/24 2:41 PM, immibis wrote: > On 1/02/24 04:26, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/31/24 9:
5 de febr.
wij
, …
Ross Finlayson
994
5 de febr.
Another rebuttal of Halting Problem?
On 02/05/2024 01:00 PM, immibis wrote: > On 31/01/24 18:11, olcott wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 11
no llegida,
Another rebuttal of Halting Problem?
On 02/05/2024 01:00 PM, immibis wrote: > On 31/01/24 18:11, olcott wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 11
5 de febr.
olcott
, …
immibis
84
5 de febr.
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference
On 31/01/24 18:11, immibis wrote: > On 1/31/24 16:40, olcott wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 6:30 AM,
no llegida,
Re: The Psychology of Self-Reference
On 31/01/24 18:11, immibis wrote: > On 1/31/24 16:40, olcott wrote: >> On 1/31/2024 6:30 AM,
5 de febr.
olcott
, …
immibis
15
5 de febr.
H correctly rejects D as non-halting
On 4/02/24 00:14, olcott wrote: > On 2/3/2024 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/3/24 4:
no llegida,
H correctly rejects D as non-halting
On 4/02/24 00:14, olcott wrote: > On 2/3/2024 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/3/24 4:
5 de febr.
olcott
, …
immibis
19
5 de febr.
Does this criteria prove that Y calls X in infinite recursion?
On 2/02/24 15:46, olcott wrote: > On 2/2/2024 4:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-02-01 17:17:
no llegida,
Does this criteria prove that Y calls X in infinite recursion?
On 2/02/24 15:46, olcott wrote: > On 2/2/2024 4:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-02-01 17:17:
5 de febr.
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
10
31 de gen.
H is necessarily correct to reject D as non-halting [tautology]
On 1/31/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote: > On 1/31/2024 6:31 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/31/24 04:
no llegida,
H is necessarily correct to reject D as non-halting [tautology]
On 1/31/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote: > On 1/31/2024 6:31 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/31/24 04:
31 de gen.
wij
31 de gen.
Easy version of P!=NP proof
ANPC::= (Another NPC) Set of decision problems that additional information c must be provided to
no llegida,
Easy version of P!=NP proof
ANPC::= (Another NPC) Set of decision problems that additional information c must be provided to
31 de gen.
immibis
29 de gen.
Another definition of the Halting Problem
Every Turing machine/input pair has an execution sequence (term invented by me. Richard and Mikko
no llegida,
Another definition of the Halting Problem
Every Turing machine/input pair has an execution sequence (term invented by me. Richard and Mikko
29 de gen.
immibis
28 de gen.
Every Turing machine/input pair has one and only one execution sequence
Olcott cannot show any Turing machine/input pair that has more than one.
no llegida,
Every Turing machine/input pair has one and only one execution sequence
Olcott cannot show any Turing machine/input pair that has more than one.
28 de gen.
olcott
, …
immibis
24
28 de gen.
The directly executed D(D) does not halt even though it looks like it does
On 1/28/24 01:35, olcott wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/27/24 6
no llegida,
The directly executed D(D) does not halt even though it looks like it does
On 1/28/24 01:35, olcott wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/27/24 6
28 de gen.
wij
,
Mikko
6
27 de gen.
About building a "general logic based on computation"
On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 11:49 +0200, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-01-21 16:10:34 +0000, wij said: >
no llegida,
About building a "general logic based on computation"
On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 11:49 +0200, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-01-21 16:10:34 +0000, wij said: >
27 de gen.
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
279
27 de gen.
Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider
On 1/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/27/24 00:
no llegida,
Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider
On 1/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote: > On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/27/24 00:
27 de gen.
olcott
, …
immibis
12
25 de gen.
The directly executed D(D) does not halt
On 1/25/24 16:04, olcott wrote: > On 1/25/2024 7:16 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/24/24 20:10,
no llegida,
The directly executed D(D) does not halt
On 1/25/24 16:04, olcott wrote: > On 1/25/2024 7:16 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 1/24/24 20:10,
25 de gen.
olcott
, …
Richard Damon
3
24 de gen.
Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox
On 1/24/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote: > *Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox* >
no llegida,
Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox
On 1/24/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote: > *Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox* >
24 de gen.
wij
, …
Mikko
12
24 de gen.
Is this a paradox? what is 'equal'?
On 2024-01-23 18:46:52 +0000, wij said: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) > A
no llegida,
Is this a paradox? what is 'equal'?
On 2024-01-23 18:46:52 +0000, wij said: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) > A
24 de gen.