Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Olcott is a Pathological Liar!
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 22:15:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v215s2$12b7d$1@i2pn2.org>
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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 02:15:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1125613"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v208db$a6jn$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7960
Lines: 168

On 5/14/24 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Except that you claim has been proven incorrect, showing that you don't 
understand

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

No, people repeating a statement that they are not sure of are dishonest.

If you were sure of your claim, you would take me up, but you think 
there is a chance I am right, and don't want to give up the "right" to 
LIE about things.

> 
> 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?
> 

Just shows you don't understand the nature of categorical statements.

Also, you don't understand that this is NOT the post where I showed what 
I am claiming proves you wrong.

That statement show that if you define things so that your claim might 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========