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 20:25:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v23jpk$15707$19@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v231gd$11ppa$1@dont-email.me> <v234r2$12odu$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 00:25:24 -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: <v234r2$12odu$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 16459
Lines: 314

On 5/15/24 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2024 2:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========