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 Liar!
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 22:15:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v215s9$12b7d$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$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>
 <v1vslr$7enr$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 02:15:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1125613"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v1vslr$7enr$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4434
Lines: 76

On 5/14/24 10:32 AM, olcott 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.
> 
> 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"
> 

Because 0 steps that are all correctly simulated means that it DID 
simulate ALL the steps it did correctly to get its answer.

That logic is just as valid as yours, which includes looking at machines 
and inputs other than the one presented.