Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v249qt$1duo9$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Thu, 16 May 2024 08:41:32 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 321 Message-ID: <v249qt$1duo9$1@dont-email.me> 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 08:41:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c7014c54fc7ef002667b588689505cf0"; logging-data="1506057"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/hQ8KRh6ztNq287om813w1" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:CgIP3dTzKINU/vH5mUOEwYj2GMw= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <v234r2$12odu$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 17241 Op 15.mei.2024 om 22:10 schreef olcott: > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from it. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========