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 09:54:29 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 348 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 16:54:30 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4dc0119aaf775edb7bf006f6d2fcc2e1"; logging-data="1714780"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SC+8mMEXbXwrKlYd0ZmVY" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:0I0xipDVu9c7QT5Kjl30iFG05xU= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 17993 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "nobody here" you are referring to must be clueless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the semantics of the C programming language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========