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 21:13:17 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 296
Message-ID: <v231gd$11ppa$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1m7mh$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> <v22uc5$10vef$1@dont-email.me>
 <v22vh7$11dig$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 21:13:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b0480db3c728e4c4de7ce30c03439a3";
	logging-data="1107754"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18LcLwPk15yttqKub257m0n"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SDYIysKhPhw3Xo7KJ9/TqBBK9fc=
In-Reply-To: <v22vh7$11dig$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 15459

Op 15.mei.2024 om 20:39 schreef olcott:
> On 5/15/2024 1:19 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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. 
>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========