Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v280r1$29b4i$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar? Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 19:32:33 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 294 Message-ID: <v280r1$29b4i$1@dont-email.me> References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <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 18:32:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3cb15e80158a0930411d19a499ee95a9"; logging-data="2403474"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199sjjarexZjaOn0PpSBDjl" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:5MYq1107696gN1XpN+vujlZfhXI= Bytes: 16568 On 2024-05-16 15:17:37 +0000, olcott said: > 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you honest? Please, give the proof, instead of keeping away from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been an expert C/C++ programmer for decades. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you knew C will enough yourself you would comprehend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that my claim about: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a simple software engineering verified fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My grandfather was a diagnostician and pathologist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said: "You can't argue with ignorance". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority and personal attacks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about lack of knowledge and ignorance. So, the text below still stands: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C yourself* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what a proof is? >>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'. >>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless about how to prove it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending arithmetic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the axiomatic properties >>>>>>>>>> of natural numbers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you >>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend arithmetic. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the semantics of C. >>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend the semantics of C. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It seems that you are >>>>>>>>>> looking for excuses to hide the fact that you have never seen such ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========