Path: ...!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: Fri, 17 May 2024 09:41:15 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 429
Message-ID: <v271ms$2339e$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$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>
 <v25krf$1nb8s$1@dont-email.me> <v25n16$1nr9a$1@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 09:41:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a3a2b6069f6f7337451de5d7934c52bb";
	logging-data="2198830"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192E43oY/+xN3DYorwfswrY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:txAI4X1WvseHpQBgXJ8mCjJjYw8=
In-Reply-To: <v25n16$1nr9a$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 22681

Op 16.mei.2024 om 21:32 schreef olcott:
> On 5/16/2024 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 16.mei.2024 om 18:04 schreef olcott:
>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========