Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar?
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 10:17:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 328
Message-ID: <v2582h$1kais$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1m2hc$1ijhr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1m31m$lbo4$1@i2pn2.org> <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>
 <v1o67n$24f4c$1@dont-email.me> <v1vslr$7enr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vuor$24b2$1@news.muc.de> <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>
 <v24ji9$1g1d8$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 17:17:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4dc0119aaf775edb7bf006f6d2fcc2e1";
	logging-data="1714780"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WZpVGYxZdDhOdj/gzhiI+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oSAIgsTtLi1noJaySz7HFeBmiWw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v24ji9$1g1d8$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 17346

On 5/16/2024 4:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-15 20:10:10 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========