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: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar!
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 22:29:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v26feo$18ad7$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1m31m$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>
 <v2582h$1kais$6@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 02:29:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1321383"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v2582h$1kais$6@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 18167
Lines: 346

On 5/16/24 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========