Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar?
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 09:32:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <v1vslr$7enr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1fetd$3s7jo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1ft42$3vdau$2@dont-email.me>
 <-5Gdnf-nQvstC6b7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v1gid8$4ilc$1@dont-email.me> <v1h9eu$9faf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1iqli$nsva$1@dont-email.me> <v1k0ts$iuna$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1k381$14mbi$2@dont-email.me> <v1labh$kf53$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1lfnq$1e7af$1@dont-email.me> <v1lh1g$kf52$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v1lmo1$1g1mj$1@dont-email.me> <v1luu1$lbo5$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v1lvuo$1i47i$1@dont-email.me> <v1m1bf$lbo5$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v1m2hc$1ijhr$1@dont-email.me> <v1m31m$lbo4$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1m4et$1iv85$1@dont-email.me> <v1m5co$lbo4$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v1m71h$1jnpi$1@dont-email.me> <v1m7mh$lbo5$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v1mb8f$1kgpl$1@dont-email.me> <v1mkf8$lbo5$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v1mkmm$1q5ee$1@dont-email.me> <v1na6f$1ugl0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1o67n$24f4c$1@dont-email.me> <v1q1ie$2l40t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1q9fp$qb0p$1@i2pn2.org> <v1qmq8$2prs6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qouc$2qb2s$1@dont-email.me> <v1vbpd$3gbc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 16:32:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e9b15de5cbd4b611ca4438a3f5fabf94";
	logging-data="244475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UjOAhr600ys7aag5Q6xZp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ki7PKJW7X8HUVCLaf0Qf+JQtrmI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1vbpd$3gbc$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4278

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.

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

In one case he "interpreted"
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*

as *D NEVER simulated by H*
I do not see how this can be an honest mistake, do you?

for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least
one element of "D NEVER simulated by H"

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer