Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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 12:52:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <v208db$a6jn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v1vslr$7enr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vuor$24b2$1@news.muc.de> <v20027$865j$1@dont-email.me>
 <v200oo$843p$1@dont-email.me> <v200u2$8dd9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v202k0$8q16$1@dont-email.me> <v20654$9o07$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2086v$a4tr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 19:52:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e9b15de5cbd4b611ca4438a3f5fabf94";
	logging-data="334455"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX189fv1RO4sp4h34Agg/CTER"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VrxRZIq4FstL/NmkD5jcZJnsQ60=
In-Reply-To: <v2086v$a4tr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7295

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 <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.

People that know they are clueless and disagree anyway
are dishonest.

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:

*When Richard interprets*

*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*

as *D NEVER simulated by H*

*Richard is saying*
for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least
one element of "D NEVER simulated by H"

Can this be an honest mistake?


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