Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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 20:19:49 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 274
Message-ID: <v22uc5$10vef$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1m5co$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v22f9e$tjgs$1@dont-email.me> <v22i3t$u5vc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v22nq4$ven4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 20:19:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b0480db3c728e4c4de7ce30c03439a3";
	logging-data="1080783"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+UPfet8Q+kYKBRDgiFUsZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/Ukn6n5uutR8tDVtpi1oWLN93T4=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v22nq4$ven4$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 14049

Op 15.mei.2024 om 18:27 schreef olcott:
> On 5/15/2024 9:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 15.mei.2024 om 16:02 schreef olcott:
>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========