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 ==========