Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar? Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 14:42:08 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 168 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 21:42:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e9b15de5cbd4b611ca4438a3f5fabf94"; logging-data="381504"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19DrDmJcTXg/hFdKA/maj05" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:7dbwsbtD4aZudV8phT9lFtHgTYI= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8571 On 5/14/2024 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 14.mei.2024 om 20:40 schreef olcott: >> On 5/14/2024 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 19:52 schreef olcott: >>>> On 5/14/2024 12:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 19:14 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 5/14/2024 11:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 17:45 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 10:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 17:30 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 10:08 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 15:58:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 11:34:17 +0000, Richard Damon said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 16:26:30 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am working on providing an academic quality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The definition in Wikipedia is good enough. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think he means, he is working on a definition that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefines the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field to allow him to claim what he wants. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here one can claim whatever one wants anysay. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In if one wants to present ones claims on some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant forum then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is better to stick to usual definitions as much as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sort of like his new definition of H as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "unconventional" machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that some how both returns an answer but also keeps on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are systems where that is possible but unsolvable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsolvable even in those systems. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This notation does not work with machines that can, or have >>>>>>>>>>>>> parts >>>>>>>>>>>>> that can, return a value without (or before) termination. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 int main() >>>>>>>>>>>> 10 { >>>>>>>>>>>> 11   H(D,D); >>>>>>>>>>>> 12 } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In any case you diverged away form the whole point of this >>>>>>>>>>>> thread. >>>>>>>>>>>> Richard is wrong when he says that there exists an H/D pair >>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>> that D simulated by H ever reaches past its own line 03. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, in the same way that you are wrong.  The above "C code" >>>>>>>>>>> is garbage; >>>>>>>>>>> as already pointed out, it doesn't even compile.  So any talk of >>>>>>>>>>> "reaching line 3" or "matching" that "code" is vacuous nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated >>>>>>>>>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past >>>>>>>>>> its own >>>>>>>>>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since nobody knows who has verified this fact en there have >>>>>>>>> been counter examples, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *See if you can show that your claim of counter-examples is not >>>>>>>> a lie* >>>>>>>> *See if you can show that your claim of counter-examples is not >>>>>>>> a lie* >>>>>>>> *See if you can show that your claim of counter-examples is not >>>>>>>> a lie* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *YOU SKIPPED THE CHALLENGE TO YOUR ASSERTION* >>>>>> IS THAT BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT IS FALSE? >>>>>> >>>>>> *YOU SKIPPED THE CHALLENGE TO YOUR ASSERTION* >>>>>> IS THAT BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT IS FALSE? >>>>>> >>>>>> *YOU SKIPPED THE CHALLENGE TO YOUR ASSERTION* >>>>>> IS THAT BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT IS FALSE? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Olcott is trying to stay at this point for several weeks now, but >>>>>>> he does not succeed. The reason probably is, that it is already a >>>>>>> few steps too far. First there must be agreement about the words >>>>>>> and terms used in what he says. So, we should delay this subject >>>>>>> and go back a few steps. >>>>>>> Before we can talk about this, first there must be 100% agreement >>>>>>> about: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) What is a "verified fact"? Who needs to do the verification >>>>>>> before it can be said that it is a verified fact? >>>>>> >>>>>> I am ONLY referring to expressions that are PROVEN >>>>>> to be {true entirely on the basis of their meaning}. >>>>>> >>>>>> *CONCRETE EXAMPLES* >>>>>> How do we know that 2 + 3 = 5? >>>>> >>>>> If needed we can write out the proof for this, starting from the >>>>> axioms for natural numbers. That proof is well known. >>>>> >>>>> But nobody here knows the proof for your assertion above, that it >>>>> is a verified fact that it cannot reach past line 03. So, we would >>>>> like to see that proof. Just the claim that it has been proven is >>>>> not enough. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The "nobody here" you are referring to must be clueless >>>> about the semantics of the C programming language. >>>> >>> >>> Are you honest? Please, give the proof, instead of keeping away from it. >> >> I have been an expert C/C++ programmer for decades. >> If you knew C will enough yourself you would comprehend >> that my claim about: >> >> Any H/D pair matching the above template where >> D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls >> cannot possibly reach past its own line 03. >> This is a simple software engineering verified fact. >> >> My grandfather was a diagnostician and pathologist >> said: "You can't argue with ignorance". > > Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority and personal attacks > about lack of knowledge and ignorance. So, the text below still stands: > *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C yourself* *Anyone that says that I am wrong without knowing C is dishonest* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========