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: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar?
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 12:18:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 504
Message-ID: <v283gv$29rd7$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$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> <v271ms$2339e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v27t7q$28hmg$3@dont-email.me> <v280c2$295g9$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 19:18:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="269f5d410d08e21225230cab72194d27";
	logging-data="2420135"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZC7a/ZJ9RTJEvcq+A8QyT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mkkDZqntJpZAkaXcxHDB3TDyLgc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v280c2$295g9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 26054

On 5/17/2024 11:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 17.mei.2024 om 17:31 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/17/2024 2:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========