Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar?
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 21:36:38 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <v20eg6$bn7u$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$1@dont-email.me> <v208db$a6jn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v20ak6$an12$1@dont-email.me> <v20b6v$akk9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 21:36:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="21481b2245c1f7c253e90c6b9fb2953a";
	logging-data="384254"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nYWVaFSgpJ0yk4mTcCTvi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:czj/AI+01N4HCI2G4TYC6Nvjsj4=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v20b6v$akk9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8410

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 <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.
>>>
>>
>> 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:

> 
>> You give the impression that you are clueless about how to prove it. 
>> The only evidence you gave, are the personal attacks to people who ask 
>> for it, which does not convince anybody.
>> It is your claim. You have the burden of the proof.
>> We need to be 100% sure before we can proceed to the next step.
>