Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar?
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 11:04:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 372
Message-ID: <v25aqg$1l575$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$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> <v24njh$1gvck$2@dont-email.me>
 <v256n5$1kais$2@dont-email.me> <v257o1$1kd2t$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 18:04:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4dc0119aaf775edb7bf006f6d2fcc2e1";
	logging-data="1742053"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UDXnsWjUHlcAxJC9hlGMI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dn+HW9++8fRDMg3MPI56aa2sBbY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v257o1$1kd2t$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 19579

On 5/16/2024 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 16.mei.2024 om 16:54 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/16/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========