Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Sat, 18 May 2024 10:45:59 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 552 Message-ID: References: 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: 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ==========