Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Wed, 15 May 2024 09:02:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 234
Message-ID: <v22f9e$tjgs$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v21k9m$nao2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 16:02:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b1a5f306bf9a6832a28841b3fc547c1";
	logging-data="970268"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ZGVXt4B+ivAbqSm1kJWEt"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OThNR4QQgfDSphP0AVtY+fo/XFU=
In-Reply-To: <v21k9m$nao2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11466

On 5/15/2024 1:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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".
>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========