Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.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: Tue, 14 May 2024 13:40:31 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 161 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 20:40:32 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e9b15de5cbd4b611ca4438a3f5fabf94"; logging-data="348809"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18xSaGbdcHZje2Nvfj/qAjB" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:gKYCL5gBF3xc/WyGhf0vIUNg/rA= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8152 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. >> > > Are you honest? Please, give the proof, instead of keeping away from it. I have been an expert C/C++ programmer for decades. If you knew C will enough yourself you would comprehend that my claim about: 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. This is a simple software engineering verified fact. My grandfather was a diagnostician and pathologist said: "You can't argue with ignorance". > You give the impression that you are clueless about how to prove it. The > only evidence you gave, are the personal attacks to people who ask for > it, which does not convince anybody. > It is your claim. You have the burden of the proof. > We need to be 100% sure before we can proceed to the next step. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer