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: Wed, 15 May 2024 20:25:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v23jp3$15707$16@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <v20g5p$c1lu$1@dont-email.me> <v20gld$c8gh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v21k9m$nao2$1@dont-email.me> <v22f9e$tjgs$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 00:25:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1219591"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v22f9e$tjgs$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11913
Lines: 237

On 5/15/24 10:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========