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: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar? Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 09:41:15 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 429 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 09:41:17 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a3a2b6069f6f7337451de5d7934c52bb"; logging-data="2198830"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192E43oY/+xN3DYorwfswrY" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:txAI4X1WvseHpQBgXJ8mCjJjYw8= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 22681 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========