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 14:34:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 570
Message-ID: <v28bh3$2be7c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$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>
 <v283gv$29rd7$2@dont-email.me> <v289kt$2au93$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 21:35:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="269f5d410d08e21225230cab72194d27";
	logging-data="2472172"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IHgKLDl3Nw2okJQ24LjS0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sVhOhDlw44+Cw8fQ0gLzsczhTdg=
In-Reply-To: <v289kt$2au93$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 29966

On 5/17/2024 2:02 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 17.mei.2024 om 19:18 schreef olcott:
>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========