Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 patholgociat liar!
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 22:29:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v26fei$18ad7$8@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1q9fp$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> <v25aqg$1l575$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 02:29:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1321383"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v25aqg$1l575$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 20119
Lines: 380

On 5/16/24 12:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========