Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Sat, 18 May 2024 10:45:59 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 552
Message-ID: <v29ps7$2n467$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$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> <v28bh3$2be7c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 10:46:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8629b49bf35ba40bf195d19c5738aa21";
	logging-data="2855111"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MeZ1Kf+ZyKWlxkHm08leh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KWWDTg94QtqzNFR7JkMsRztz5OA=
In-Reply-To: <v28bh3$2be7c$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 29859

Op 17.mei.2024 om 21:34 schreef olcott:
> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========