Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 22:29:35 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) 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 02:29:35 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1321383"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 18440 Lines: 356 On 5/16/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: > 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But nobody here knows the proof for your assertion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above, that it is a verified fact that it cannot reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past line 03. So, we would like to see that proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just the claim that it has been proven is not enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "nobody here" you are referring to must be clueless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the semantics of the C programming language. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========