Path: ...!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 15:13:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 185
Message-ID: <v20gld$c8gh$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v20eg6$bn7u$1@dont-email.me> <v20eqg$bki0$2@dont-email.me>
 <v20g5p$c1lu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 22:13:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e9b15de5cbd4b611ca4438a3f5fabf94";
	logging-data="401937"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/LBLmLohjIyUycOjhLkP1j"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1KxDB9N9Ae4wtqovW9UKb+OMq3w=
In-Reply-To: <v20g5p$c1lu$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9483

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 <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:
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========