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 Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar? Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 11:31:25 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 394 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 18:31:26 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="269f5d410d08e21225230cab72194d27"; logging-data="2401213"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19yqvqUNPu/6lZL7FgLjAxx" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:F7ef+hctCZ/QJW+ES0ugT2XEFJs= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 20953 On 5/17/2024 4:47 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-16 16:04:32 +0000, olcott said: > >> 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 ==========