Path: ...!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: Thu, 16 May 2024 11:04:32 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 372 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 18:04:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4dc0119aaf775edb7bf006f6d2fcc2e1"; logging-data="1742053"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UDXnsWjUHlcAxJC9hlGMI" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dn+HW9++8fRDMg3MPI56aa2sBbY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 19579 On 5/16/2024 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 16.mei.2024 om 16:54 schreef olcott: >> On 5/16/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 15.mei.2024 om 22:10 schreef olcott: >>>> On 5/15/2024 2:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 15.mei.2024 om 20:39 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 5/15/2024 1:19 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 15.mei.2024 om 18:27 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 15.mei.2024 om 16:02 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 1:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 22:13 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 3:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 21:42 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========