Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.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: Wed, 15 May 2024 11:27:48 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 266 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 18:27:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b1a5f306bf9a6832a28841b3fc547c1"; logging-data="1030884"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wphVdn+gscE+NKZ2cU7rM" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:yOZyOlFv0PNAa4sTnrKV+T6snew= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 13368 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========