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 22:15:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v215sf$12b7d$7@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v20ak6$an12$1@dont-email.me> <v20b6v$akk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v20eg6$bn7u$1@dont-email.me> <v20eqg$bki0$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 02:15:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1125613"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v20eqg$bki0$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8831
Lines: 173

On 5/14/24 3:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>
> 
> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C yourself*
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========