Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts"
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar?
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 08:21:43 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 187
Message-ID:
References:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 08:21:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b0480db3c728e4c4de7ce30c03439a3";
logging-data="764674"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0iAGbjtqK7QrHtgjFMHpu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kLwfMihYhj8S58daqVERcoyIAbY=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To:
Bytes: 9846
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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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:
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========