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 ==========