Path: ...!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: Wed, 15 May 2024 08:21:43 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 187
Message-ID: <v21k9m$nao2$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$1@dont-email.me> <v20gld$c8gh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 08:21:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b0480db3c728e4c4de7ce30c03439a3";
	logging-data="764674"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0iAGbjtqK7QrHtgjFMHpu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kLwfMihYhj8S58daqVERcoyIAbY=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v20gld$c8gh$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9846

Op 14.mei.2024 om 22:13 schreef olcott:
> 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 ==========