Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #333681 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 409 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:22 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 20:26 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:14 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:01 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- typo olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 20:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:15 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:42 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:03 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 10:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:53 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:39 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:00 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:07 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:33 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:32 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:44 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 13:28 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:26 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:48 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 18:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 18:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:51 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 23:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:35 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:47 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-09 12:34 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:21 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:30 +0800
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:41 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:49 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 19:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:19 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:32 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:35 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 18:31 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 20:54 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 22:40 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 16:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 11:07 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 20:48 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-09 08:43 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 14:15 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:43 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-08 16:13 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:38 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 10:38 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Richard tried to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:10 -0500
Re: Olcott doesn't understand logic Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 10:50 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 12:12 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 12:49 -0500
Olcott keeps on lying. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 15:27 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:50 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:11 -0500
Olcott thinks something isn't iteself. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:19 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:43 -0500
Olcott can't tell the difference between a machine and an infinte set of machines Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:59 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 17:28 -0500
Olcott thinks One is Infinity Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0400
Richard seems to be a liar. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0500
Olcott doesn't know the difference between an element an the set Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:17 -0400
Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:21 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No, but Olcott is. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:39 -0400
Richard must be educated on what a termination analyzer is olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:49 -0500
Olcott admits to creating defintion out of his *ss Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:26 -0500
Re: Is Oclott a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:46 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 08:51 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:32 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-14 15:08 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:45 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 18:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:14 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 19:49 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:52 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 20:30 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-14 19:01 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:10 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:20 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:59 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:14 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:53 +0200
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:27 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 10:48 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 19:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:18 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 12:18 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 21:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:42 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 22:05 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:13 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 08:21 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:02 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:19 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 21:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 08:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:17 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 19:32 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:24 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:39 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:12 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-18 10:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:31 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 12:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:54 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:12 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 20:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 14:32 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 09:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 18:24 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:18 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 21:02 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 10:58 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:45 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:43 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:40 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 14:13 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 23:05 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 07:24 -0400
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 07:53 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar. Message ID Provided, so OLCOTT is the LIAR. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 09:13 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 10:26 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:38 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:09 +0300
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:56 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:26 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 06:27 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:09 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:47 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:43 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:04 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:39 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 13:40 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:16 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 14:54 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 17:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:57 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 18:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:33 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 19:29 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:18 -0500
Re: Is Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! (Glad you argree) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Pathological Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:48 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-17 07:09 +0000
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-17 13:50 +0100
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:28 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker -- Reply to Ben's long standing objection olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:42 -0500
Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:46 -0500
Re: Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:01 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:23 +0300
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:00 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 23:11 -0400
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:49 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:37 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 06:53 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 08:19 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 23:49 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 17:51 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-14 02:17 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 19:37 -0500
Re: Olcott KEEPS LYING about Richard not refuting his statemnt. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 21:51 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:29 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 17:55 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 13:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 18:38 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 09:48 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 10:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:48 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 12:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 19:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 17:14 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 19:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:30 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-19 00:48 -0600
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 09:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 13:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 14:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:49 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:18 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 08:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:10 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 09:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 11:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 11:06 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 12:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 17:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 17:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 19:12 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:21 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400
My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 21:30 -0500
Re: My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:10 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:11 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:17 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:14 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 16:57 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 10:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:27 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 17:58 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-09 04:05 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 00:43 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 20:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 03:25 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-10 07:18 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### (watches state changes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 23:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:52 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 15:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 07:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-10 14:53 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200
Page 12 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 21 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! |
| Message-ID | <v26fel$18ad7$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334204 |
On 5/16/24 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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 <polcott333@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal attacks about lack of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. So, the text below still stands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless about how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatic properties of natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are looking for excuses to hide the fact that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have never seen such proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand C and understand proofs then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that a single counter-example would refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my claim if one exists. You would also understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when no such counter-example exists that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you to do one of three things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Admit that I am correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Provide a single counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Admit that you simply don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Any other response will be construed as intentional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional deception certainly meets the requirement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth of defamation lawsuits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that olcott does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> know a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any claim that my statement is incorrect that does not have the
>>>>>>>>>>> required single counter-example proving that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of defamation. This is definitely defamation when people
>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the
>>>>>>>>>>> art of C programming understand that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true
>>>>>>>>>>> and proved entirely on the basis of the semantics of the C
>>>>>>>>>>> programing
>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It your claim, so you have the burden of a proof. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing a counter example is not a proof. It seems you are
>>>>>>>>>>>> using such excuses to hide the fact that you don't know how
>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove it. Again, if there is a proof, show it. Otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>> stop saying that it is a verified fact, because it becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>> more and more clear that nobody verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *It is ONLY a verified fact to people*
>>>>>>>>>>> *skilled in the art of C programming*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/mole-chemistry
>>>>>>>>>>> A mole in chemistry is only a verified fact to those
>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the art of chemistry. To everyone else it
>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal that burrows in the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. The excuse, asking for a counter example,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People that claimed they provided (a valid) counter-example
>>>>>>>>> are LIARS. They that know is was an invalid or non-existent
>>>>>>>>> counter-example is a basis for winning a defamation suit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is even weaker. If there is a proof, it would be so simple to
>>>>>>>>>> show it here. As even olcott said that a verified fact is a
>>>>>>>>>> proven fact, he cannot speak of a verified fact as long as
>>>>>>>>>> there is no proof. I have 50 years of experience in
>>>>>>>>>> programming, many years in C, so I am a very skilled C
>>>>>>>>>> programmer. So, why do you hide the proof? I wonder what the
>>>>>>>>>> next excuse will be to hide the fact that there is no proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Then you know that valid counter-examples cannot possibly exist*
>>>>>>>>> *and implication otherwise is a reckless disregard for the truth*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again no proof. This time, instead of a proof, the claim that a
>>>>>>>> counter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I had 10,000 experts in C that are PhD computer scientists
>>>>>>> that agreed with me this would not be proof. It is you that do
>>>>>>> not understand what proof is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again an excuse to hide the proof. Now the prejudice that we would
>>>>>> not understand it.
>>>>>> Further, it seems to be another indication that olcott does not
>>>>>> understand how a proof in computation theory looks like. It is not
>>>>>> like a juridical proof, where the number and expertise of
>>>>>> witnesses play a role.
>>>>>> In computation theory a proof consists of a number of steps,
>>>>>> starting with the definitions of the elements involved and of the
>>>>>> axioms of the theory, resulting in a conclusion. Each of these
>>>>>> steps can be explained from the definitions, axioms and results of
>>>>>> previous steps.
>>>>>> Olcott, again, if you want to convince people, learn how to
>>>>>> formulate a proof. Up to now, we have not seen more than your
>>>>>> conviction, without evidence. Present the proof and we will see
>>>>>> whether we understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is true that the semantics of C does prove that
>>>>> the above paragraph is true.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is also true that you have proven that you are not
>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again no proof. Again the excuse that we would not be interested in
>>>> an honest dialogue. I am interested. That is why I ask for the proof.
>>>
>>> Anyone that knows the semantics of the C language well enough
>>> understands that a counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>> (a) You know the semantics of C well enough and lie.
>>> (b) You know the semantics of C well enough and fail to tell the truth.
>>
>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that we can find out ourselves.
>> Olcott is claiming, so olcott has the burden of the proof. Without a
>> proof, it is not "verified fact", but "my belief".
>> (a) olcott knows that there is no such proof.
>> (b) olcott has no idea how to formulate a proof.
>> (c) olcott thinks he has a proof, but does not dare to show it,
>> because he is afraid that someone will spot an error in it.
>>
>
> It seems that you are simply too ignorant to understand that the
> following is self-evidently true on the basis of the semantics of
> the C programming language.
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
> 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 return 0;
> 13 }
>
> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>
> This may or include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>
> 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*
>
No, it is a made up Olcott pathological lie, as proven by the fact that
I showed how to do it two weeks ago.
And you must think it possible that I did, as you refuse to take the put
up or shut up challange.
I have no need to present more proof, as it is proven, and people seem
to understand it.
YOU have a ned to prove your point, but can't so you resort to empty
rhetoric.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 09:41 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v271ms$2339e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334204 |
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 <polcott333@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal attacks about lack of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. So, the text below still stands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless about how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatic properties of natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are looking for excuses to hide the fact that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have never seen such proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand C and understand proofs then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that a single counter-example would refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my claim if one exists. You would also understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when no such counter-example exists that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you to do one of three things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Admit that I am correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Provide a single counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Admit that you simply don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Any other response will be construed as intentional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional deception certainly meets the requirement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth of defamation lawsuits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that olcott does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> know a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any claim that my statement is incorrect that does not have the
>>>>>>>>>>> required single counter-example proving that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of defamation. This is definitely defamation when people
>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the
>>>>>>>>>>> art of C programming understand that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true
>>>>>>>>>>> and proved entirely on the basis of the semantics of the C
>>>>>>>>>>> programing
>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It your claim, so you have the burden of a proof. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing a counter example is not a proof. It seems you are
>>>>>>>>>>>> using such excuses to hide the fact that you don't know how
>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove it. Again, if there is a proof, show it. Otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>> stop saying that it is a verified fact, because it becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>> more and more clear that nobody verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *It is ONLY a verified fact to people*
>>>>>>>>>>> *skilled in the art of C programming*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/mole-chemistry
>>>>>>>>>>> A mole in chemistry is only a verified fact to those
>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the art of chemistry. To everyone else it
>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal that burrows in the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. The excuse, asking for a counter example,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People that claimed they provided (a valid) counter-example
>>>>>>>>> are LIARS. They that know is was an invalid or non-existent
>>>>>>>>> counter-example is a basis for winning a defamation suit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is even weaker. If there is a proof, it would be so simple to
>>>>>>>>>> show it here. As even olcott said that a verified fact is a
>>>>>>>>>> proven fact, he cannot speak of a verified fact as long as
>>>>>>>>>> there is no proof. I have 50 years of experience in
>>>>>>>>>> programming, many years in C, so I am a very skilled C
>>>>>>>>>> programmer. So, why do you hide the proof? I wonder what the
>>>>>>>>>> next excuse will be to hide the fact that there is no proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Then you know that valid counter-examples cannot possibly exist*
>>>>>>>>> *and implication otherwise is a reckless disregard for the truth*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again no proof. This time, instead of a proof, the claim that a
>>>>>>>> counter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I had 10,000 experts in C that are PhD computer scientists
>>>>>>> that agreed with me this would not be proof. It is you that do
>>>>>>> not understand what proof is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again an excuse to hide the proof. Now the prejudice that we would
>>>>>> not understand it.
>>>>>> Further, it seems to be another indication that olcott does not
>>>>>> understand how a proof in computation theory looks like. It is not
>>>>>> like a juridical proof, where the number and expertise of
>>>>>> witnesses play a role.
>>>>>> In computation theory a proof consists of a number of steps,
>>>>>> starting with the definitions of the elements involved and of the
>>>>>> axioms of the theory, resulting in a conclusion. Each of these
>>>>>> steps can be explained from the definitions, axioms and results of
>>>>>> previous steps.
>>>>>> Olcott, again, if you want to convince people, learn how to
>>>>>> formulate a proof. Up to now, we have not seen more than your
>>>>>> conviction, without evidence. Present the proof and we will see
>>>>>> whether we understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is true that the semantics of C does prove that
>>>>> the above paragraph is true.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is also true that you have proven that you are not
>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again no proof. Again the excuse that we would not be interested in
>>>> an honest dialogue. I am interested. That is why I ask for the proof.
>>>
>>> Anyone that knows the semantics of the C language well enough
>>> understands that a counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>> (a) You know the semantics of C well enough and lie.
>>> (b) You know the semantics of C well enough and fail to tell the truth.
>>
>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that we can find out ourselves.
>> Olcott is claiming, so olcott has the burden of the proof. Without a
>> proof, it is not "verified fact", but "my belief".
>> (a) olcott knows that there is no such proof.
>> (b) olcott has no idea how to formulate a proof.
>> (c) olcott thinks he has a proof, but does not dare to show it,
>> because he is afraid that someone will spot an error in it.
>>
>
> It seems that you are simply too ignorant to understand that the
> following is self-evidently true on the basis of the semantics of
> the C programming language.
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
> 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 return 0;
> 13 }
>
> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>
> This may or include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>
> 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*
>
>
Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A bad
excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what we call
belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified fact' we should
read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your belief, your are not
going to invalidate a proven theorem in computation theory. You will
convince nobody if no proof can be supplied.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 10:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v27t7q$28hmg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334230 |
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal attacks about lack of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. So, the text below still stands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless about how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatic properties of natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are looking for excuses to hide the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have never seen such proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand C and understand proofs then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that a single counter-example would refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my claim if one exists. You would also understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when no such counter-example exists that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you to do one of three things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Admit that I am correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Provide a single counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Admit that you simply don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Any other response will be construed as intentional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional deception certainly meets the requirement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth of defamation lawsuits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that olcott does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any claim that my statement is incorrect that does not have the
>>>>>>>>>>>> required single counter-example proving that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> of defamation. This is definitely defamation when people
>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> art of C programming understand that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true
>>>>>>>>>>>> and proved entirely on the basis of the semantics of the C
>>>>>>>>>>>> programing
>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It your claim, so you have the burden of a proof. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing a counter example is not a proof. It seems you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using such excuses to hide the fact that you don't know how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove it. Again, if there is a proof, show it. Otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop saying that it is a verified fact, because it becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more and more clear that nobody verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is ONLY a verified fact to people*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *skilled in the art of C programming*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/mole-chemistry
>>>>>>>>>>>> A mole in chemistry is only a verified fact to those
>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the art of chemistry. To everyone else it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal that burrows in the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. The excuse, asking for a counter example,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People that claimed they provided (a valid) counter-example
>>>>>>>>>> are LIARS. They that know is was an invalid or non-existent
>>>>>>>>>> counter-example is a basis for winning a defamation suit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> is even weaker. If there is a proof, it would be so simple to
>>>>>>>>>>> show it here. As even olcott said that a verified fact is a
>>>>>>>>>>> proven fact, he cannot speak of a verified fact as long as
>>>>>>>>>>> there is no proof. I have 50 years of experience in
>>>>>>>>>>> programming, many years in C, so I am a very skilled C
>>>>>>>>>>> programmer. So, why do you hide the proof? I wonder what the
>>>>>>>>>>> next excuse will be to hide the fact that there is no proof.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Then you know that valid counter-examples cannot possibly exist*
>>>>>>>>>> *and implication otherwise is a reckless disregard for the truth*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. This time, instead of a proof, the claim that a
>>>>>>>>> counter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I had 10,000 experts in C that are PhD computer scientists
>>>>>>>> that agreed with me this would not be proof. It is you that do
>>>>>>>> not understand what proof is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again an excuse to hide the proof. Now the prejudice that we
>>>>>>> would not understand it.
>>>>>>> Further, it seems to be another indication that olcott does not
>>>>>>> understand how a proof in computation theory looks like. It is
>>>>>>> not like a juridical proof, where the number and expertise of
>>>>>>> witnesses play a role.
>>>>>>> In computation theory a proof consists of a number of steps,
>>>>>>> starting with the definitions of the elements involved and of the
>>>>>>> axioms of the theory, resulting in a conclusion. Each of these
>>>>>>> steps can be explained from the definitions, axioms and results
>>>>>>> of previous steps.
>>>>>>> Olcott, again, if you want to convince people, learn how to
>>>>>>> formulate a proof. Up to now, we have not seen more than your
>>>>>>> conviction, without evidence. Present the proof and we will see
>>>>>>> whether we understand it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is true that the semantics of C does prove that
>>>>>> the above paragraph is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is also true that you have proven that you are not
>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again no proof. Again the excuse that we would not be interested in
>>>>> an honest dialogue. I am interested. That is why I ask for the proof.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone that knows the semantics of the C language well enough
>>>> understands that a counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>>> (a) You know the semantics of C well enough and lie.
>>>> (b) You know the semantics of C well enough and fail to tell the truth.
>>>
>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that we can find out ourselves.
>>> Olcott is claiming, so olcott has the burden of the proof. Without a
>>> proof, it is not "verified fact", but "my belief".
>>> (a) olcott knows that there is no such proof.
>>> (b) olcott has no idea how to formulate a proof.
>>> (c) olcott thinks he has a proof, but does not dare to show it,
>>> because he is afraid that someone will spot an error in it.
>>>
>>
>> It seems that you are simply too ignorant to understand that the
>> following is self-evidently true on the basis of the semantics of
>> the C programming language.
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>> 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 return 0;
>> 13 }
>>
>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>
>> This may or include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>
>> 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*
>>
>>
>
> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A bad
> excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what we call
> belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified fact' we should
> read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your belief, your are not
> going to invalidate a proven theorem in computation theory. You will
> convince nobody if no proof can be supplied.
It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
of the semantics of the C programming language.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 18:24 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v280c2$295g9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334238 |
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal attacks about lack of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. So, the text below still stands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatic properties of natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are looking for excuses to hide the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have never seen such proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand C and understand proofs then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that a single counter-example would refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my claim if one exists. You would also understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when no such counter-example exists that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you to do one of three things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Admit that I am correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Provide a single counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Admit that you simply don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Any other response will be construed as intentional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional deception certainly meets the requirement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth of defamation lawsuits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that olcott does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any claim that my statement is incorrect that does not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> required single counter-example proving that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of defamation. This is definitely defamation when people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> art of C programming understand that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proved entirely on the basis of the semantics of the C
>>>>>>>>>>>>> programing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It your claim, so you have the burden of a proof. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing a counter example is not a proof. It seems you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using such excuses to hide the fact that you don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to prove it. Again, if there is a proof, show it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise stop saying that it is a verified fact, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it becomes more and more clear that nobody verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is ONLY a verified fact to people*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *skilled in the art of C programming*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/mole-chemistry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A mole in chemistry is only a verified fact to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the art of chemistry. To everyone else it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal that burrows in the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. The excuse, asking for a counter example,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People that claimed they provided (a valid) counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>> are LIARS. They that know is was an invalid or non-existent
>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example is a basis for winning a defamation suit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is even weaker. If there is a proof, it would be so simple
>>>>>>>>>>>> to show it here. As even olcott said that a verified fact is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a proven fact, he cannot speak of a verified fact as long as
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no proof. I have 50 years of experience in
>>>>>>>>>>>> programming, many years in C, so I am a very skilled C
>>>>>>>>>>>> programmer. So, why do you hide the proof? I wonder what the
>>>>>>>>>>>> next excuse will be to hide the fact that there is no proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Then you know that valid counter-examples cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> exist*
>>>>>>>>>>> *and implication otherwise is a reckless disregard for the
>>>>>>>>>>> truth*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. This time, instead of a proof, the claim that
>>>>>>>>>> a counter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I had 10,000 experts in C that are PhD computer scientists
>>>>>>>>> that agreed with me this would not be proof. It is you that do
>>>>>>>>> not understand what proof is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again an excuse to hide the proof. Now the prejudice that we
>>>>>>>> would not understand it.
>>>>>>>> Further, it seems to be another indication that olcott does not
>>>>>>>> understand how a proof in computation theory looks like. It is
>>>>>>>> not like a juridical proof, where the number and expertise of
>>>>>>>> witnesses play a role.
>>>>>>>> In computation theory a proof consists of a number of steps,
>>>>>>>> starting with the definitions of the elements involved and of
>>>>>>>> the axioms of the theory, resulting in a conclusion. Each of
>>>>>>>> these steps can be explained from the definitions, axioms and
>>>>>>>> results of previous steps.
>>>>>>>> Olcott, again, if you want to convince people, learn how to
>>>>>>>> formulate a proof. Up to now, we have not seen more than your
>>>>>>>> conviction, without evidence. Present the proof and we will see
>>>>>>>> whether we understand it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is true that the semantics of C does prove that
>>>>>>> the above paragraph is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is also true that you have proven that you are not
>>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again no proof. Again the excuse that we would not be interested
>>>>>> in an honest dialogue. I am interested. That is why I ask for the
>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone that knows the semantics of the C language well enough
>>>>> understands that a counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>>>> (a) You know the semantics of C well enough and lie.
>>>>> (b) You know the semantics of C well enough and fail to tell the
>>>>> truth.
>>>>
>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that we can find out ourselves.
>>>> Olcott is claiming, so olcott has the burden of the proof. Without a
>>>> proof, it is not "verified fact", but "my belief".
>>>> (a) olcott knows that there is no such proof.
>>>> (b) olcott has no idea how to formulate a proof.
>>>> (c) olcott thinks he has a proof, but does not dare to show it,
>>>> because he is afraid that someone will spot an error in it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that you are simply too ignorant to understand that the
>>> following is self-evidently true on the basis of the semantics of
>>> the C programming language.
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>> 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 return 0;
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>
>>> This may or include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> 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*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A
>> bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what
>> we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified fact'
>> we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your belief,
>> your are not going to invalidate a proven theorem in computation
>> theory. You will convince nobody if no proof can be supplied.
>
> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>
Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evident. I am starting
to feel sorry for olcott. Apparently he has no clue about how the proof
should look like. Maybe we can help him a little bit.
We don't need a very detailed proof. An outline would be sufficient. We
can always ask for more details.
A proof starts with axioms and definition. Your D is reasonable well
defined, but there is no clear definition for H. Specify which
properties of H are needed for the proof.
Note: you are speaking of an infinite set of H, so one example is not
enough to explain what you mean. Specify all properties required for the
proof.
Then explain how H recognizes that it is about to start a recursive
simulation.
Then prove that the simulated algorithm does not stop normally, even for
those H for which it is known that H aborts and returns a value. Not by
showing one (or a few) examples, but with a proof that holds for any H
with the specified properties.
This is only a global outline. A full proof needs many more steps, so it
is far from self-evident.
Then you may have proved that for the H with the specified properties
the simulated D cannot reach line 04. Try it. It is the only way to make
it a verified fact.
When that is a done, we can continue with the next step.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 12:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v283gv$29rd7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334243 |
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal attacks about lack of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. So, the text below still stands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatic properties of natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are looking for excuses to hide the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have never seen such proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand C and understand proofs then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that a single counter-example would refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my claim if one exists. You would also understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when no such counter-example exists that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you to do one of three things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Admit that I am correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Provide a single counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Admit that you simply don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Any other response will be construed as intentional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional deception certainly meets the requirement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth of defamation lawsuits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that olcott does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any claim that my statement is incorrect that does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required single counter-example proving that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of defamation. This is definitely defamation when people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art of C programming understand that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proved entirely on the basis of the semantics of the C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It your claim, so you have the burden of a proof. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing a counter example is not a proof. It seems you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are using such excuses to hide the fact that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how to prove it. Again, if there is a proof, show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Otherwise stop saying that it is a verified fact,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it becomes more and more clear that nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is ONLY a verified fact to people*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *skilled in the art of C programming*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/mole-chemistry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A mole in chemistry is only a verified fact to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the art of chemistry. To everyone else it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal that burrows in the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. The excuse, asking for a counter example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People that claimed they provided (a valid) counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>> are LIARS. They that know is was an invalid or non-existent
>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example is a basis for winning a defamation suit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is even weaker. If there is a proof, it would be so simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show it here. As even olcott said that a verified fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a proven fact, he cannot speak of a verified fact as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long as there is no proof. I have 50 years of experience in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> programming, many years in C, so I am a very skilled C
>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmer. So, why do you hide the proof? I wonder what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next excuse will be to hide the fact that there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then you know that valid counter-examples cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *and implication otherwise is a reckless disregard for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> truth*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. This time, instead of a proof, the claim that
>>>>>>>>>>> a counter
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I had 10,000 experts in C that are PhD computer scientists
>>>>>>>>>> that agreed with me this would not be proof. It is you that do
>>>>>>>>>> not understand what proof is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again an excuse to hide the proof. Now the prejudice that we
>>>>>>>>> would not understand it.
>>>>>>>>> Further, it seems to be another indication that olcott does not
>>>>>>>>> understand how a proof in computation theory looks like. It is
>>>>>>>>> not like a juridical proof, where the number and expertise of
>>>>>>>>> witnesses play a role.
>>>>>>>>> In computation theory a proof consists of a number of steps,
>>>>>>>>> starting with the definitions of the elements involved and of
>>>>>>>>> the axioms of the theory, resulting in a conclusion. Each of
>>>>>>>>> these steps can be explained from the definitions, axioms and
>>>>>>>>> results of previous steps.
>>>>>>>>> Olcott, again, if you want to convince people, learn how to
>>>>>>>>> formulate a proof. Up to now, we have not seen more than your
>>>>>>>>> conviction, without evidence. Present the proof and we will see
>>>>>>>>> whether we understand it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is true that the semantics of C does prove that
>>>>>>>> the above paragraph is true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is also true that you have proven that you are not
>>>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again no proof. Again the excuse that we would not be interested
>>>>>>> in an honest dialogue. I am interested. That is why I ask for the
>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone that knows the semantics of the C language well enough
>>>>>> understands that a counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>>>>> (a) You know the semantics of C well enough and lie.
>>>>>> (b) You know the semantics of C well enough and fail to tell the
>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that we can find out ourselves.
>>>>> Olcott is claiming, so olcott has the burden of the proof. Without
>>>>> a proof, it is not "verified fact", but "my belief".
>>>>> (a) olcott knows that there is no such proof.
>>>>> (b) olcott has no idea how to formulate a proof.
>>>>> (c) olcott thinks he has a proof, but does not dare to show it,
>>>>> because he is afraid that someone will spot an error in it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that you are simply too ignorant to understand that the
>>>> following is self-evidently true on the basis of the semantics of
>>>> the C programming language.
>>>>
>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>> 13 }
>>>>
>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>
>>>> This may or include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>>
>>>> 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*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A
>>> bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what
>>> we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified
>>> fact' we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your
>>> belief, your are not going to invalidate a proven theorem in
>>> computation theory. You will convince nobody if no proof can be
>>> supplied.
>>
>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>
>
> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evident.
The you want me to prove something to you in a language that you do not
sufficiently understand is an unreasonable request. I have improved the
words of my proof and put in some more details.
typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
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 return 0;
13 }
In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
specified by the x86 instructions of D.
This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 01
Line 02
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
The key thing to note is that no D simulated correctly by any H of every
H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06
and halts.
The above is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient
knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 21:02 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v289kt$2au93$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334250 |
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal attacks about lack of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. So, the text below still stands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatic properties of natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are looking for excuses to hide the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have never seen such proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand C and understand proofs then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that a single counter-example would refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my claim if one exists. You would also understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when no such counter-example exists that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you to do one of three things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Admit that I am correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Provide a single counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Admit that you simply don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Any other response will be construed as intentional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional deception certainly meets the requirement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth of defamation lawsuits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that olcott does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any claim that my statement is incorrect that does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required single counter-example proving that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of defamation. This is definitely defamation when people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art of C programming understand that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proved entirely on the basis of the semantics of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C programing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It your claim, so you have the burden of a proof. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing a counter example is not a proof. It seems you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are using such excuses to hide the fact that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how to prove it. Again, if there is a proof, show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Otherwise stop saying that it is a verified fact,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it becomes more and more clear that nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is ONLY a verified fact to people*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *skilled in the art of C programming*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/mole-chemistry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A mole in chemistry is only a verified fact to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the art of chemistry. To everyone else it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal that burrows in the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. The excuse, asking for a counter example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that claimed they provided (a valid) counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are LIARS. They that know is was an invalid or non-existent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example is a basis for winning a defamation suit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is even weaker. If there is a proof, it would be so simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show it here. As even olcott said that a verified fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a proven fact, he cannot speak of a verified fact as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long as there is no proof. I have 50 years of experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in programming, many years in C, so I am a very skilled C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmer. So, why do you hide the proof? I wonder what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next excuse will be to hide the fact that there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then you know that valid counter-examples cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *and implication otherwise is a reckless disregard for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. This time, instead of a proof, the claim
>>>>>>>>>>>> that a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I had 10,000 experts in C that are PhD computer scientists
>>>>>>>>>>> that agreed with me this would not be proof. It is you that do
>>>>>>>>>>> not understand what proof is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again an excuse to hide the proof. Now the prejudice that we
>>>>>>>>>> would not understand it.
>>>>>>>>>> Further, it seems to be another indication that olcott does
>>>>>>>>>> not understand how a proof in computation theory looks like.
>>>>>>>>>> It is not like a juridical proof, where the number and
>>>>>>>>>> expertise of witnesses play a role.
>>>>>>>>>> In computation theory a proof consists of a number of steps,
>>>>>>>>>> starting with the definitions of the elements involved and of
>>>>>>>>>> the axioms of the theory, resulting in a conclusion. Each of
>>>>>>>>>> these steps can be explained from the definitions, axioms and
>>>>>>>>>> results of previous steps.
>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, again, if you want to convince people, learn how to
>>>>>>>>>> formulate a proof. Up to now, we have not seen more than your
>>>>>>>>>> conviction, without evidence. Present the proof and we will
>>>>>>>>>> see whether we understand it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is true that the semantics of C does prove that
>>>>>>>>> the above paragraph is true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is also true that you have proven that you are not
>>>>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Again the excuse that we would not be interested
>>>>>>>> in an honest dialogue. I am interested. That is why I ask for
>>>>>>>> the proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone that knows the semantics of the C language well enough
>>>>>>> understands that a counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>> (a) You know the semantics of C well enough and lie.
>>>>>>> (b) You know the semantics of C well enough and fail to tell the
>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that we can find out ourselves.
>>>>>> Olcott is claiming, so olcott has the burden of the proof. Without
>>>>>> a proof, it is not "verified fact", but "my belief".
>>>>>> (a) olcott knows that there is no such proof.
>>>>>> (b) olcott has no idea how to formulate a proof.
>>>>>> (c) olcott thinks he has a proof, but does not dare to show it,
>>>>>> because he is afraid that someone will spot an error in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that you are simply too ignorant to understand that the
>>>>> following is self-evidently true on the basis of the semantics of
>>>>> the C programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>
>>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>>
>>>>> This may or include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A
>>>> bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what
>>>> we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified
>>>> fact' we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your
>>>> belief, your are not going to invalidate a proven theorem in
>>>> computation theory. You will convince nobody if no proof can be
>>>> supplied.
>>>
>>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>
>>
>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evident.
>
> The you want me to prove something to you in a language that you do not
> sufficiently understand is an unreasonable request. I have improved the
> words of my proof and put in some more details.
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
> 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 return 0;
> 13 }
>
> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>
> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>
> Execution Trace
> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
> Line 01
> Line 02
> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
> Simulation invariant:
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
> The key thing to note is that no D simulated correctly by any H of every
> H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06
> and halts.
>
> The above is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient
> knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
Again no proof. But it seems that olcott is slowly starting to
understand that it is not self-evident, because he now shows a small
beginning of an attempt for a proof. It is a pity for him that he
ignored the rest of my post where I told him a brief outline for a proof.
What we still miss are the requirements for H. A working example is not
enough to define an infinite set of H. So, define the requirements.
Then, do not only claim that there is a simulation invariant, but prove
it. Of course you need to master a language to express such a proof. If
you don't master such a language, try to learn it. Claiming, without
evidence, that it is self-evident is not part of the correct language.
Then explain how H determines that there is a recursive simulation, so
that it can abort the simulation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 14:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v28bh3$2be7c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334258 |
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and personal attacks about lack of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. So, the text below still stands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatic properties of natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems that you are looking for excuses to hide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that you have never seen such proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand C and understand proofs then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that a single counter-example would refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my claim if one exists. You would also understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when no such counter-example exists that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you to do one of three things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Admit that I am correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Provide a single counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Admit that you simply don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Any other response will be construed as intentional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional deception certainly meets the requirement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth of defamation lawsuits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that olcott does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not know a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any claim that my statement is incorrect that does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required single counter-example proving that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of defamation. This is definitely defamation when people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art of C programming understand that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proved entirely on the basis of the semantics of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C programing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It your claim, so you have the burden of a proof. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing a counter example is not a proof. It seems you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are using such excuses to hide the fact that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how to prove it. Again, if there is a proof, show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Otherwise stop saying that it is a verified fact,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it becomes more and more clear that nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is ONLY a verified fact to people*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *skilled in the art of C programming*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/mole-chemistry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A mole in chemistry is only a verified fact to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the art of chemistry. To everyone else it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal that burrows in the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. The excuse, asking for a counter example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that claimed they provided (a valid) counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are LIARS. They that know is was an invalid or non-existent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example is a basis for winning a defamation suit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is even weaker. If there is a proof, it would be so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple to show it here. As even olcott said that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified fact is a proven fact, he cannot speak of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified fact as long as there is no proof. I have 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years of experience in programming, many years in C, so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am a very skilled C programmer. So, why do you hide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof? I wonder what the next excuse will be to hide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that there is no proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then you know that valid counter-examples cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *and implication otherwise is a reckless disregard for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. This time, instead of a proof, the claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I had 10,000 experts in C that are PhD computer scientists
>>>>>>>>>>>> that agreed with me this would not be proof. It is you that do
>>>>>>>>>>>> not understand what proof is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again an excuse to hide the proof. Now the prejudice that we
>>>>>>>>>>> would not understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Further, it seems to be another indication that olcott does
>>>>>>>>>>> not understand how a proof in computation theory looks like.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not like a juridical proof, where the number and
>>>>>>>>>>> expertise of witnesses play a role.
>>>>>>>>>>> In computation theory a proof consists of a number of steps,
>>>>>>>>>>> starting with the definitions of the elements involved and of
>>>>>>>>>>> the axioms of the theory, resulting in a conclusion. Each of
>>>>>>>>>>> these steps can be explained from the definitions, axioms and
>>>>>>>>>>> results of previous steps.
>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, again, if you want to convince people, learn how to
>>>>>>>>>>> formulate a proof. Up to now, we have not seen more than your
>>>>>>>>>>> conviction, without evidence. Present the proof and we will
>>>>>>>>>>> see whether we understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is true that the semantics of C does prove that
>>>>>>>>>> the above paragraph is true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is also true that you have proven that you are not
>>>>>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Again the excuse that we would not be
>>>>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue. I am interested. That is why
>>>>>>>>> I ask for the proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone that knows the semantics of the C language well enough
>>>>>>>> understands that a counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>> (a) You know the semantics of C well enough and lie.
>>>>>>>> (b) You know the semantics of C well enough and fail to tell the
>>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that we can find out ourselves.
>>>>>>> Olcott is claiming, so olcott has the burden of the proof.
>>>>>>> Without a proof, it is not "verified fact", but "my belief".
>>>>>>> (a) olcott knows that there is no such proof.
>>>>>>> (b) olcott has no idea how to formulate a proof.
>>>>>>> (c) olcott thinks he has a proof, but does not dare to show it,
>>>>>>> because he is afraid that someone will spot an error in it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that you are simply too ignorant to understand that the
>>>>>> following is self-evidently true on the basis of the semantics of
>>>>>> the C programming language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This may or include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>>>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>>>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A
>>>>> bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is
>>>>> what we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes
>>>>> 'verified fact' we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with
>>>>> only your belief, your are not going to invalidate a proven theorem
>>>>> in computation theory. You will convince nobody if no proof can be
>>>>> supplied.
>>>>
>>>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>>>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evident.
>>
>> The you want me to prove something to you in a language that you do not
>> sufficiently understand is an unreasonable request. I have improved the
>> words of my proof and put in some more details.
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>> 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 return 0;
>> 13 }
>>
>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>
>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>
>> Execution Trace
>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>
>> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
>> Line 01
>> Line 02
>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>
>> Simulation invariant:
>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>
>> The key thing to note is that no D simulated correctly by any H of every
>> H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06
>> and halts.
>>
>> The above is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient
>> knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
>
> Again no proof. But it seems that olcott is slowly starting to
> understand that it is not self-evident, because he now shows a small
> beginning of an attempt for a proof. It is a pity for him that he
> ignored the rest of my post where I told him a brief outline for a proof.
> What we still miss are the requirements for H.
I try to do the best that I can to write my words so that even people
with attention deficit disorder (ADD) can understand them.
The ONLY requirement for H as I have said many many hundreds of times
is that H simulates D.
The self-evident meaning of what D correctly simulated by H means is
now specified so that people trying as hard as possible to make sure
to find any loophole to intentionally misinterpret my words will look
much more foolish.
> A working example is not
> enough to define an infinite set of H. So, define the requirements.
>
I did and always have. Possibly not well enough for people having
ADD that can hardly pay any attention. Not well enough for people
having insufficient knowledge of the semantics of C.
> Then, do not only claim that there is a simulation invariant, but prove
> it.
Prove that 2 + 3 = 5 to someone that does not know what numbers are.
No need for any proof for people that understand arithmetic.
> Of course you need to master a language to express such a proof. If
> you don't master such a language, try to learn it. Claiming, without
> evidence, that it is self-evident is not part of the correct language.
>
If you have ADD and can't pay attention or do not know the semantics
of C well enough to understand that I have proved my point I don't
know what I can do to help you understand that what I have said has
always been self-evidently true for everyone having sufficient
knowledge of the semantics of C.
Tell me which part you don't understand and I might be able to help.
If you have no idea what infinite recursion is then I cannot help.
> Then explain how H determines that there is a recursive simulation, so
> that it can abort the simulation.
>
*That is not any part of what I claimed above*
*That is not any part of what I claimed above*
*That is not any part of what I claimed above*
*You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words*
*You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words*
*You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words*
If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help.
If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help.
If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is a Liar! |
| Message-ID | <v28uve$1a3tk$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334259 |
On 5/17/24 3:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> Again no proof. But it seems that olcott is slowly starting to >> understand that it is not self-evident, because he now shows a small >> beginning of an attempt for a proof. It is a pity for him that he >> ignored the rest of my post where I told him a brief outline for a proof. >> What we still miss are the requirements for H. > > I try to do the best that I can to write my words so that even people > with attention deficit disorder (ADD) can understand them. > > The ONLY requirement for H as I have said many many hundreds of times > is that H simulates D. > > The self-evident meaning of what D correctly simulated by H means is > now specified so that people trying as hard as possible to make sure > to find any loophole to intentionally misinterpret my words will look > much more foolish. Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or about what truth actually is. And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have me repost the link (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try to do some research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of your claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway. And you are proven to just be an ignorant damned pathological liar. > >> A working example is not enough to define an infinite set of H. So, >> define the requirements. >> > > I did and always have. Possibly not well enough for people having > ADD that can hardly pay any attention. Not well enough for people > having insufficient knowledge of the semantics of C. But YOU are the one shown to not have sufficient knowledge, since I proved it two weeks ago. > >> Then, do not only claim that there is a simulation invariant, but >> prove it. > > Prove that 2 + 3 = 5 to someone that does not know what numbers are. > No need for any proof for people that understand arithmetic. > >> Of course you need to master a language to express such a proof. If >> you don't master such a language, try to learn it. Claiming, without >> evidence, that it is self-evident is not part of the correct language. >> > > If you have ADD and can't pay attention or do not know the semantics > of C well enough to understand that I have proved my point I don't > know what I can do to help you understand that what I have said has > always been self-evidently true for everyone having sufficient > knowledge of the semantics of C. Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or about what truth actually is. And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have me repost the link (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try to do some research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of your claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway. And you are proven to just be an ignorant damned pathological liar. > > Tell me which part you don't understand and I might be able to help. > If you have no idea what infinite recursion is then I cannot help. > >> Then explain how H determines that there is a recursive simulation, so >> that it can abort the simulation. >> > > *That is not any part of what I claimed above* > *That is not any part of what I claimed above* > *That is not any part of what I claimed above* > > *You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words* > *You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words* > *You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words* > > If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help. > If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help. > If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 10:58 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v29n3g$2mjdp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334259 |
On 2024-05-17 19:34:58 +0000, olcott said:
> 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 <polcott333@gmail.com> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority and personal attacks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about lack of knowledge and ignorance. So, the text below still stands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what a proof is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless about how to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the axiomatic properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend the semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It seems that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking for excuses to hide the fact that you have never seen such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand C and understand proofs then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that a single counter-example would refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my claim if one exists. You would also understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when no such counter-example exists that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you to do one of three things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Admit that I am correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Provide a single counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Admit that you simply don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Any other response will be construed as intentional deception*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional deception certainly meets the requirement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth of defamation lawsuits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that olcott does not know a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any claim that my statement is incorrect that does not have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required single counter-example proving that my claim is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of defamation. This is definitely defamation when people skilled in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art of C programming understand that my claim is self-evidently true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proved entirely on the basis of the semantics of the C programing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It your claim, so you have the burden of a proof. Not knowing a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example is not a proof. It seems you are using such excuses to hide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that you don't know how to prove it. Again, if there is a proof,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show it. Otherwise stop saying that it is a verified fact, because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes more and more clear that nobody verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is ONLY a verified fact to people*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *skilled in the art of C programming*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/mole-chemistry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A mole in chemistry is only a verified fact to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the art of chemistry. To everyone else it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal that burrows in the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. The excuse, asking for a counter example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that claimed they provided (a valid) counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are LIARS. They that know is was an invalid or non-existent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example is a basis for winning a defamation suit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is even weaker. If there is a proof, it would be so simple to show it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. As even olcott said that a verified fact is a proven fact, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot speak of a verified fact as long as there is no proof. I have 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years of experience in programming, many years in C, so I am a very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled C programmer. So, why do you hide the proof? I wonder what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next excuse will be to hide the fact that there is no proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then you know that valid counter-examples cannot possibly exist*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *and implication otherwise is a reckless disregard for the truth*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. This time, instead of a proof, the claim that a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I had 10,000 experts in C that are PhD computer scientists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that agreed with me this would not be proof. It is you that do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not understand what proof is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again an excuse to hide the proof. Now the prejudice that we would not
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, it seems to be another indication that olcott does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand how a proof in computation theory looks like. It is not like
>>>>>>>>>>>> a juridical proof, where the number and expertise of witnesses play a
>>>>>>>>>>>> role.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In computation theory a proof consists of a number of steps, starting
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the definitions of the elements involved and of the axioms of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, resulting in a conclusion. Each of these steps can be explained
>>>>>>>>>>>> from the definitions, axioms and results of previous steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, again, if you want to convince people, learn how to formulate a
>>>>>>>>>>>> proof. Up to now, we have not seen more than your conviction, without
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence. Present the proof and we will see whether we understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is true that the semantics of C does prove that
>>>>>>>>>>> the above paragraph is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is also true that you have proven that you are not
>>>>>>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Again the excuse that we would not be interested in an
>>>>>>>>>> honest dialogue. I am interested. That is why I ask for the proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone that knows the semantics of the C language well enough
>>>>>>>>> understands that a counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>>> (a) You know the semantics of C well enough and lie.
>>>>>>>>> (b) You know the semantics of C well enough and fail to tell the truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that we can find out ourselves.
>>>>>>>> Olcott is claiming, so olcott has the burden of the proof. Without a
>>>>>>>> proof, it is not "verified fact", but "my belief".
>>>>>>>> (a) olcott knows that there is no such proof.
>>>>>>>> (b) olcott has no idea how to formulate a proof.
>>>>>>>> (c) olcott thinks he has a proof, but does not dare to show it, because
>>>>>>>> he is afraid that someone will spot an error in it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems that you are simply too ignorant to understand that the
>>>>>>> following is self-evidently true on the basis of the semantics of
>>>>>>> the C programming language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This may or include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>>>>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>>>>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A bad
>>>>>> excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what we
>>>>>> call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified fact' we
>>>>>> should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your belief, your
>>>>>> are not going to invalidate a proven theorem in computation theory. You
>>>>>> will convince nobody if no proof can be supplied.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>>>>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evident.
>>>
>>> The you want me to prove something to you in a language that you do not
>>> sufficiently understand is an unreasonable request. I have improved the
>>> words of my proof and put in some more details.
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>> 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 return 0;
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>
>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> Execution Trace
>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>
>>> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
>>> Line 01
>>> Line 02
>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>>
>>> Simulation invariant:
>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>
>>> The key thing to note is that no D simulated correctly by any H of every
>>> H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06
>>> and halts.
>>>
>>> The above is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient
>>> knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>
>> Again no proof. But it seems that olcott is slowly starting to
>> understand that it is not self-evident, because he now shows a small
>> beginning of an attempt for a proof. It is a pity for him that he
>> ignored the rest of my post where I told him a brief outline for a
>> proof.
>> What we still miss are the requirements for H.
>
> I try to do the best that I can to write my words so that even people
> with attention deficit disorder (ADD) can understand them.
>
> The ONLY requirement for H as I have said many many hundreds of times
> is that H simulates D.
>
> The self-evident meaning of what D correctly simulated by H means is
> now specified so that people trying as hard as possible to make sure
> to find any loophole to intentionally misinterpret my words will look
> much more foolish.
>
>> A working example is not enough to define an infinite set of H. So,
>> define the requirements.
>>
>
> I did and always have. Possibly not well enough for people having
> ADD that can hardly pay any attention. Not well enough for people
> having insufficient knowledge of the semantics of C.
>
>> Then, do not only claim that there is a simulation invariant, but prove it.
>
> Prove that 2 + 3 = 5 to someone that does not know what numbers are.
> No need for any proof for people that understand arithmetic.
You need to prove it if you want to replace Peano arithmetic, where
Gödel's incompleteness theorem has the same truth value as 2 + 3 = 5,
with something where it has not.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 10:45 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v29ps7$2n467$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334259 |
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and personal attacks about lack of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. So, the text below still stands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a proof is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatic properties of natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems that you are looking for excuses to hide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that you have never seen such proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand C and understand proofs then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that a single counter-example would refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my claim if one exists. You would also understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when no such counter-example exists that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you to do one of three things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Admit that I am correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Provide a single counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Admit that you simply don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Any other response will be construed as intentional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional deception certainly meets the requirement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth of defamation lawsuits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that olcott does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not know a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any claim that my statement is incorrect that does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required single counter-example proving that my claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of defamation. This is definitely defamation when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people skilled in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art of C programming understand that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proved entirely on the basis of the semantics of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C programing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It your claim, so you have the burden of a proof. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing a counter example is not a proof. It seems you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are using such excuses to hide the fact that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how to prove it. Again, if there is a proof, show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Otherwise stop saying that it is a verified fact,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it becomes more and more clear that nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is ONLY a verified fact to people*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *skilled in the art of C programming*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/mole-chemistry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A mole in chemistry is only a verified fact to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the art of chemistry. To everyone else it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal that burrows in the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. The excuse, asking for a counter example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that claimed they provided (a valid) counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are LIARS. They that know is was an invalid or non-existent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example is a basis for winning a defamation suit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is even weaker. If there is a proof, it would be so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple to show it here. As even olcott said that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified fact is a proven fact, he cannot speak of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified fact as long as there is no proof. I have 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years of experience in programming, many years in C, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am a very skilled C programmer. So, why do you hide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proof? I wonder what the next excuse will be to hide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that there is no proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then you know that valid counter-examples cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *and implication otherwise is a reckless disregard for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the truth*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. This time, instead of a proof, the claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I had 10,000 experts in C that are PhD computer scientists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that agreed with me this would not be proof. It is you that do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not understand what proof is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again an excuse to hide the proof. Now the prejudice that we
>>>>>>>>>>>> would not understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, it seems to be another indication that olcott does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not understand how a proof in computation theory looks like.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not like a juridical proof, where the number and
>>>>>>>>>>>> expertise of witnesses play a role.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In computation theory a proof consists of a number of steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>> starting with the definitions of the elements involved and
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the axioms of the theory, resulting in a conclusion. Each
>>>>>>>>>>>> of these steps can be explained from the definitions, axioms
>>>>>>>>>>>> and results of previous steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, again, if you want to convince people, learn how to
>>>>>>>>>>>> formulate a proof. Up to now, we have not seen more than
>>>>>>>>>>>> your conviction, without evidence. Present the proof and we
>>>>>>>>>>>> will see whether we understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is true that the semantics of C does prove that
>>>>>>>>>>> the above paragraph is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is also true that you have proven that you are not
>>>>>>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Again the excuse that we would not be
>>>>>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue. I am interested. That is why
>>>>>>>>>> I ask for the proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone that knows the semantics of the C language well enough
>>>>>>>>> understands that a counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>>> (a) You know the semantics of C well enough and lie.
>>>>>>>>> (b) You know the semantics of C well enough and fail to tell
>>>>>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that we can find out ourselves.
>>>>>>>> Olcott is claiming, so olcott has the burden of the proof.
>>>>>>>> Without a proof, it is not "verified fact", but "my belief".
>>>>>>>> (a) olcott knows that there is no such proof.
>>>>>>>> (b) olcott has no idea how to formulate a proof.
>>>>>>>> (c) olcott thinks he has a proof, but does not dare to show it,
>>>>>>>> because he is afraid that someone will spot an error in it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems that you are simply too ignorant to understand that the
>>>>>>> following is self-evidently true on the basis of the semantics of
>>>>>>> the C programming language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This may or include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>>>>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>>>>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true.
>>>>>> A bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is
>>>>>> what we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes
>>>>>> 'verified fact' we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but
>>>>>> with only your belief, your are not going to invalidate a proven
>>>>>> theorem in computation theory. You will convince nobody if no
>>>>>> proof can be supplied.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>>>>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evident.
>>>
>>> The you want me to prove something to you in a language that you do not
>>> sufficiently understand is an unreasonable request. I have improved the
>>> words of my proof and put in some more details.
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>> 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 return 0;
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>
>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> Execution Trace
>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>
>>> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
>>> Line 01
>>> Line 02
>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>>
>>> Simulation invariant:
>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>
>>> The key thing to note is that no D simulated correctly by any H of every
>>> H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06
>>> and halts.
>>>
>>> The above is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient
>>> knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>
>> Again no proof. But it seems that olcott is slowly starting to
>> understand that it is not self-evident, because he now shows a small
>> beginning of an attempt for a proof. It is a pity for him that he
>> ignored the rest of my post where I told him a brief outline for a proof.
>> What we still miss are the requirements for H.
>
> I try to do the best that I can to write my words so that even people
> with attention deficit disorder (ADD) can understand them.
>
> The ONLY requirement for H as I have said many many hundreds of times
> is that H simulates D.
>
> The self-evident meaning of what D correctly simulated by H means is
> now specified so that people trying as hard as possible to make sure
> to find any loophole to intentionally misinterpret my words will look
> much more foolish.
>
>> A working example is not enough to define an infinite set of H. So,
>> define the requirements.
>>
>
> I did and always have. Possibly not well enough for people having
> ADD that can hardly pay any attention. Not well enough for people
> having insufficient knowledge of the semantics of C.
>
>> Then, do not only claim that there is a simulation invariant, but
>> prove it.
>
> Prove that 2 + 3 = 5 to someone that does not know what numbers are.
> No need for any proof for people that understand arithmetic.
Even when people do not understand how the natural numbers system is
defined, I can show the proof. Of course, there may be a risk that they
do not understand it.
But olcott has not even attempted to show a proof for the claim of a
simulation variant. Show it, then we will see whether or not we
understand it. Because he keeps hiding the proof, it seems olcott has no
proof, but simply believes it must be right.
B.t.w., I am starting to doubt that olcott can prove that 2 + 3 = 5. It
looks as if he does not know what a proof is. Probably, he will say
self-evident and think that is a proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 10:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v2a0oa$1clc8$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334259 |
Am Fri, 17 May 2024 14:34:58 -0500 schrieb 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> 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: [kept for beauty] >>> The you want me to prove something to you in a language that you do not >>> sufficiently understand is an unreasonable request. I have improved the >>> words of my proof and put in some more details. Unreasonable is requesting a review, nay, a commitment to correctness. [copypasta] >> Again no proof. But it seems that olcott is slowly starting to >> understand that it is not self-evident, because he now shows a small >> beginning of an attempt for a proof. It is a pity for him that he >> ignored the rest of my post where I told him a brief outline for a proof. >> What we still miss are the requirements for H. > I try to do the best that I can to write my words so that even people > with attention deficit disorder (ADD) can understand them. No need to stigmatise. >> A working example is not >> enough to define an infinite set of H. So, define the requirements. > I did and always have. Possibly not well enough for people having > ADD that can hardly pay any attention. Not well enough for people > having insufficient knowledge of the semantics of C. Where is the code for H? >> Then, do not only claim that there is a simulation invariant, but prove >> it. > Prove that 2 + 3 = 5 to someone that does not know what numbers are. > No need for any proof for people that understand arithmetic. Then what are you doing here? >> Of course you need to master a language to express such a proof. If >> you don't master such a language, try to learn it. Claiming, without >> evidence, that it is self-evident is not part of the correct language. > If you have ADD and can't pay attention or do not know the semantics > of C well enough to understand that I have proved my point I don't > know what I can do to help you understand that what I have said has > always been self-evidently true for everyone having sufficient > knowledge of the semantics of C. > > Tell me which part you don't understand and I might be able to help. > If you have no idea what infinite recursion is then I cannot help. >> Then explain how H determines that there is a recursive simulation, so >> that it can abort the simulation. > *That is not any part of what I claimed above* > *You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words* > If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help. You claim that H is a simulator and a decider. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 10:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v2ahr2$2rekn$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334297 |
On 5/18/2024 5:43 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 17 May 2024 14:34:58 -0500 schrieb 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> 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:
> [kept for beauty]
>
>>>> The you want me to prove something to you in a language that you do not
>>>> sufficiently understand is an unreasonable request. I have improved the
>>>> words of my proof and put in some more details.
> Unreasonable is requesting a review, nay, a commitment to correctness.
>
> [copypasta]
>>> Again no proof. But it seems that olcott is slowly starting to
>>> understand that it is not self-evident, because he now shows a small
>>> beginning of an attempt for a proof. It is a pity for him that he
>>> ignored the rest of my post where I told him a brief outline for a proof.
>>> What we still miss are the requirements for H.
>> I try to do the best that I can to write my words so that even people
>> with attention deficit disorder (ADD) can understand them.
> No need to stigmatise.
>
>>> A working example is not
>>> enough to define an infinite set of H. So, define the requirements.
>> I did and always have. Possibly not well enough for people having
>> ADD that can hardly pay any attention. Not well enough for people
>> having insufficient knowledge of the semantics of C.
> Where is the code for H?
>
>>> Then, do not only claim that there is a simulation invariant, but prove
>>> it.
>> Prove that 2 + 3 = 5 to someone that does not know what numbers are.
>> No need for any proof for people that understand arithmetic.
> Then what are you doing here?
>
>>> Of course you need to master a language to express such a proof. If
>>> you don't master such a language, try to learn it. Claiming, without
>>> evidence, that it is self-evident is not part of the correct language.
>> If you have ADD and can't pay attention or do not know the semantics
>> of C well enough to understand that I have proved my point I don't
>> know what I can do to help you understand that what I have said has
>> always been self-evidently true for everyone having sufficient
>> knowledge of the semantics of C.
>>
>> Tell me which part you don't understand and I might be able to help.
>> If you have no idea what infinite recursion is then I cannot help.
>
>
>>> Then explain how H determines that there is a recursive simulation, so
>>> that it can abort the simulation.
>> *That is not any part of what I claimed above*
>> *You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words*
>> If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help.
> You claim that H is a simulator and a decider.
>
typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr y);
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 return 0;
13 }
In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the
x86 instructions of D.
This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the
order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in
recursive simulation.
Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 01:
Line 02:
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
The key thing to note is that no D correctly simulated by any H of every
H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06
and halts.
*UNTIL MUTUAL AGREEMENT IS ACHIEVED ON THE LAST LINE*
*NO ADDITIONAL STEPS OF MY PROOF CAN POSSIBLY BE UNDERSTOOD*
*THE ABOVE H IS ONLY KNOWN TO BE A SIMULATOR*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 11:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v2ai53$1ct7o$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334311 |
On 5/18/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2024 5:43 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 17 May 2024 14:34:58 -0500 schrieb 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> 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:
>> [kept for beauty]
>>
>>>>> The you want me to prove something to you in a language that you do
>>>>> not
>>>>> sufficiently understand is an unreasonable request. I have improved
>>>>> the
>>>>> words of my proof and put in some more details.
>> Unreasonable is requesting a review, nay, a commitment to correctness.
>>
>> [copypasta]
>>>> Again no proof. But it seems that olcott is slowly starting to
>>>> understand that it is not self-evident, because he now shows a small
>>>> beginning of an attempt for a proof. It is a pity for him that he
>>>> ignored the rest of my post where I told him a brief outline for a
>>>> proof.
>>>> What we still miss are the requirements for H.
>>> I try to do the best that I can to write my words so that even people
>>> with attention deficit disorder (ADD) can understand them.
>> No need to stigmatise.
>>
>>>> A working example is not
>>>> enough to define an infinite set of H. So, define the requirements.
>>> I did and always have. Possibly not well enough for people having
>>> ADD that can hardly pay any attention. Not well enough for people
>>> having insufficient knowledge of the semantics of C.
>> Where is the code for H?
>>
>>>> Then, do not only claim that there is a simulation invariant, but prove
>>>> it.
>>> Prove that 2 + 3 = 5 to someone that does not know what numbers are.
>>> No need for any proof for people that understand arithmetic.
>> Then what are you doing here?
>>
>>>> Of course you need to master a language to express such a proof. If
>>>> you don't master such a language, try to learn it. Claiming, without
>>>> evidence, that it is self-evident is not part of the correct language.
>>> If you have ADD and can't pay attention or do not know the semantics
>>> of C well enough to understand that I have proved my point I don't
>>> know what I can do to help you understand that what I have said has
>>> always been self-evidently true for everyone having sufficient
>>> knowledge of the semantics of C.
>>>
>>> Tell me which part you don't understand and I might be able to help.
>>> If you have no idea what infinite recursion is then I cannot help.
>>
>>
>>>> Then explain how H determines that there is a recursive simulation, so
>>>> that it can abort the simulation.
>>> *That is not any part of what I claimed above*
>>> *You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words*
>>> If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help.
>
>> You claim that H is a simulator and a decider.
>>
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr y);
> 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 return 0;
> 13 }
>
> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
> at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the
> x86 instructions of D.
>
> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the
> order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in
> recursive simulation.
>
> Execution Trace
> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
> Line 01:
> Line 02:
> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
> Simulation invariant:
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
> The key thing to note is that no D correctly simulated by any H of every
> H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06
> and halts.
>
> *UNTIL MUTUAL AGREEMENT IS ACHIEVED ON THE LAST LINE*
> *NO ADDITIONAL STEPS OF MY PROOF CAN POSSIBLY BE UNDERSTOOD*
> *THE ABOVE H IS ONLY KNOWN TO BE A SIMULATOR*
>
Why should people agree to your disproven claim?
Can you not undestand how wrong you are?
H defined as:
int H(ptr x, ptr y) {
static int flag = 0;
if (flag) return 0;
flag = 1
/* Then you normal H but with the code to suppress the simulation of H
disabled, so it does simulate D's call into H */
}
will correctly simulate D to the final state at line 06
So, you are just proved to be an ignorant pathological lying idiot that
doesn't actually care about what is true, but is trying to get people to
accept his own false ideas, just like the election deniers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 14:13 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Is Richard a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v2a610$2pb1m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334259 |
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and personal attacks about lack of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. So, the text below still stands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a proof is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatic properties of natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems that you are looking for excuses to hide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that you have never seen such proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand C and understand proofs then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that a single counter-example would refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my claim if one exists. You would also understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when no such counter-example exists that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you to do one of three things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Admit that I am correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Provide a single counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Admit that you simply don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Any other response will be construed as intentional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional deception certainly meets the requirement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth of defamation lawsuits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that olcott does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not know a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any claim that my statement is incorrect that does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required single counter-example proving that my claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of defamation. This is definitely defamation when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people skilled in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art of C programming understand that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proved entirely on the basis of the semantics of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C programing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It your claim, so you have the burden of a proof. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing a counter example is not a proof. It seems you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are using such excuses to hide the fact that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how to prove it. Again, if there is a proof, show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Otherwise stop saying that it is a verified fact,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it becomes more and more clear that nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is ONLY a verified fact to people*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *skilled in the art of C programming*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/mole-chemistry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A mole in chemistry is only a verified fact to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the art of chemistry. To everyone else it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal that burrows in the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. The excuse, asking for a counter example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that claimed they provided (a valid) counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are LIARS. They that know is was an invalid or non-existent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example is a basis for winning a defamation suit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is even weaker. If there is a proof, it would be so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple to show it here. As even olcott said that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified fact is a proven fact, he cannot speak of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified fact as long as there is no proof. I have 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years of experience in programming, many years in C, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am a very skilled C programmer. So, why do you hide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proof? I wonder what the next excuse will be to hide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact that there is no proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then you know that valid counter-examples cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *and implication otherwise is a reckless disregard for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the truth*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. This time, instead of a proof, the claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I had 10,000 experts in C that are PhD computer scientists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that agreed with me this would not be proof. It is you that do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not understand what proof is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again an excuse to hide the proof. Now the prejudice that we
>>>>>>>>>>>> would not understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, it seems to be another indication that olcott does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not understand how a proof in computation theory looks like.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not like a juridical proof, where the number and
>>>>>>>>>>>> expertise of witnesses play a role.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In computation theory a proof consists of a number of steps,
>>>>>>>>>>>> starting with the definitions of the elements involved and
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the axioms of the theory, resulting in a conclusion. Each
>>>>>>>>>>>> of these steps can be explained from the definitions, axioms
>>>>>>>>>>>> and results of previous steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, again, if you want to convince people, learn how to
>>>>>>>>>>>> formulate a proof. Up to now, we have not seen more than
>>>>>>>>>>>> your conviction, without evidence. Present the proof and we
>>>>>>>>>>>> will see whether we understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is true that the semantics of C does prove that
>>>>>>>>>>> the above paragraph is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is also true that you have proven that you are not
>>>>>>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Again the excuse that we would not be
>>>>>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue. I am interested. That is why
>>>>>>>>>> I ask for the proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone that knows the semantics of the C language well enough
>>>>>>>>> understands that a counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>>> (a) You know the semantics of C well enough and lie.
>>>>>>>>> (b) You know the semantics of C well enough and fail to tell
>>>>>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that we can find out ourselves.
>>>>>>>> Olcott is claiming, so olcott has the burden of the proof.
>>>>>>>> Without a proof, it is not "verified fact", but "my belief".
>>>>>>>> (a) olcott knows that there is no such proof.
>>>>>>>> (b) olcott has no idea how to formulate a proof.
>>>>>>>> (c) olcott thinks he has a proof, but does not dare to show it,
>>>>>>>> because he is afraid that someone will spot an error in it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems that you are simply too ignorant to understand that the
>>>>>>> following is self-evidently true on the basis of the semantics of
>>>>>>> the C programming language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This may or include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>>>>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>>>>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true.
>>>>>> A bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is
>>>>>> what we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes
>>>>>> 'verified fact' we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but
>>>>>> with only your belief, your are not going to invalidate a proven
>>>>>> theorem in computation theory. You will convince nobody if no
>>>>>> proof can be supplied.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>>>>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evident.
>>>
>>> The you want me to prove something to you in a language that you do not
>>> sufficiently understand is an unreasonable request. I have improved the
>>> words of my proof and put in some more details.
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>> 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 return 0;
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>
>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> Execution Trace
>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>
>>> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
>>> Line 01
>>> Line 02
>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>>
>>> Simulation invariant:
>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>
>>> The key thing to note is that no D simulated correctly by any H of every
>>> H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06
>>> and halts.
>>>
>>> The above is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient
>>> knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>
>> Again no proof. But it seems that olcott is slowly starting to
>> understand that it is not self-evident, because he now shows a small
>> beginning of an attempt for a proof. It is a pity for him that he
>> ignored the rest of my post where I told him a brief outline for a proof.
>> What we still miss are the requirements for H.
>
> I try to do the best that I can to write my words so that even people
> with attention deficit disorder (ADD) can understand them.
>
> The ONLY requirement for H as I have said many many hundreds of times
> is that H simulates D.
>
> The self-evident meaning of what D correctly simulated by H means is
> now specified so that people trying as hard as possible to make sure
> to find any loophole to intentionally misinterpret my words will look
> much more foolish.
>
>> A working example is not enough to define an infinite set of H. So,
>> define the requirements.
>>
>
> I did and always have. Possibly not well enough for people having
> ADD that can hardly pay any attention. Not well enough for people
> having insufficient knowledge of the semantics of C.
>
>> Then, do not only claim that there is a simulation invariant, but
>> prove it.
>
> Prove that 2 + 3 = 5 to someone that does not know what numbers are.
> No need for any proof for people that understand arithmetic.
It seems olcott has no clue for the proof of 2 + 3 = 5, either. He seems
to think that arithmetic is the basis for such a proof. But the opposite
is true. Such proofs are the basis for arithmetic.
So, I have a proposal for olcott. I will show how a proof looks like and
what kind of proof we need, by writing out the proof for 2 + 3 = 5, but
only if he promises that he will then show the proof for his 'simulation
invariant' in about the same level of detail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is a Liar! |
| Message-ID | <v28v09$1a3tk$14@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334250 |
On 5/17/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <polcott333@gmail.com> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Only your authority and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal attacks about lack of knowledge and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. So, the text below still stands:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no trace of a proof. Do you understand what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it follows with very simple reasoning from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatic properties of natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand them then the proof is easy if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not understand them then the proof is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we understand C, that is not an excuse. It seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are looking for excuses to hide the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have never seen such proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you understand C and understand proofs then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that a single counter-example would refute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my claim if one exists. You would also understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when no such counter-example exists that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I ask you to do one of three things:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Admit that I am correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Provide a single counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Admit that you simply don't understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Any other response will be construed as intentional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intentional deception certainly meets the requirement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckless disregard for the truth of defamation lawsuits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that olcott does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any claim that my statement is incorrect that does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required single counter-example proving that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be construed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of defamation. This is definitely defamation when people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art of C programming understand that my claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proved entirely on the basis of the semantics of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C programing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It your claim, so you have the burden of a proof. Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowing a counter example is not a proof. It seems you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are using such excuses to hide the fact that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how to prove it. Again, if there is a proof, show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Otherwise stop saying that it is a verified fact,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it becomes more and more clear that nobody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is ONLY a verified fact to people*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *skilled in the art of C programming*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/mole-chemistry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A mole in chemistry is only a verified fact to those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skilled in the art of chemistry. To everyone else it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal that burrows in the ground.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. The excuse, asking for a counter example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People that claimed they provided (a valid) counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are LIARS. They that know is was an invalid or non-existent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example is a basis for winning a defamation suit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is even weaker. If there is a proof, it would be so simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show it here. As even olcott said that a verified fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a proven fact, he cannot speak of a verified fact as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long as there is no proof. I have 50 years of experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in programming, many years in C, so I am a very skilled C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmer. So, why do you hide the proof? I wonder what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the next excuse will be to hide the fact that there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then you know that valid counter-examples cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *and implication otherwise is a reckless disregard for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again no proof. This time, instead of a proof, the claim
>>>>>>>>>>>> that a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I had 10,000 experts in C that are PhD computer scientists
>>>>>>>>>>> that agreed with me this would not be proof. It is you that do
>>>>>>>>>>> not understand what proof is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again an excuse to hide the proof. Now the prejudice that we
>>>>>>>>>> would not understand it.
>>>>>>>>>> Further, it seems to be another indication that olcott does
>>>>>>>>>> not understand how a proof in computation theory looks like.
>>>>>>>>>> It is not like a juridical proof, where the number and
>>>>>>>>>> expertise of witnesses play a role.
>>>>>>>>>> In computation theory a proof consists of a number of steps,
>>>>>>>>>> starting with the definitions of the elements involved and of
>>>>>>>>>> the axioms of the theory, resulting in a conclusion. Each of
>>>>>>>>>> these steps can be explained from the definitions, axioms and
>>>>>>>>>> results of previous steps.
>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, again, if you want to convince people, learn how to
>>>>>>>>>> formulate a proof. Up to now, we have not seen more than your
>>>>>>>>>> conviction, without evidence. Present the proof and we will
>>>>>>>>>> see whether we understand it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is true that the semantics of C does prove that
>>>>>>>>> the above paragraph is true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is also true that you have proven that you are not
>>>>>>>>> interested in an honest dialogue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again no proof. Again the excuse that we would not be interested
>>>>>>>> in an honest dialogue. I am interested. That is why I ask for
>>>>>>>> the proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone that knows the semantics of the C language well enough
>>>>>>> understands that a counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>> (a) You know the semantics of C well enough and lie.
>>>>>>> (b) You know the semantics of C well enough and fail to tell the
>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again no proof. Now with the excuse that we can find out ourselves.
>>>>>> Olcott is claiming, so olcott has the burden of the proof. Without
>>>>>> a proof, it is not "verified fact", but "my belief".
>>>>>> (a) olcott knows that there is no such proof.
>>>>>> (b) olcott has no idea how to formulate a proof.
>>>>>> (c) olcott thinks he has a proof, but does not dare to show it,
>>>>>> because he is afraid that someone will spot an error in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that you are simply too ignorant to understand that the
>>>>> following is self-evidently true on the basis of the semantics of
>>>>> the C programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>> 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 return 0;
>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>
>>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>>
>>>>> This may or include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A
>>>> bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what
>>>> we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified
>>>> fact' we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your
>>>> belief, your are not going to invalidate a proven theorem in
>>>> computation theory. You will convince nobody if no proof can be
>>>> supplied.
>>>
>>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>
>>
>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evident.
>
> The you want me to prove something to you in a language that you do not
> sufficiently understand is an unreasonable request. I have improved the
> words of my proof and put in some more details.
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
> 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 return 0;
> 13 }
>
> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>
> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>
> Execution Trace
> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
> Line 01
> Line 02
> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
> Simulation invariant:
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
> The key thing to note is that no D simulated correctly by any H of every
> H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06
> and halts.
>
> The above is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient
> knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
>
>
>
Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that
you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or
about what truth actually is.
And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have me
repost the link (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try
to do some research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of
your claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway.
So, you are just condemened as a damned pathological liar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is a Liar? |
| Message-ID | <v28v0g$1a3tk$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334238 |
On 5/17/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/17/2024 2:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A >> bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what >> we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified fact' >> we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your belief, >> your are not going to invalidate a proven theorem in computation >> theory. You will convince nobody if no proof can be supplied. > > It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge > of the semantics of the C programming language. > > Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or about what truth actually is. And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have me repost the link (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try to do some research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of your claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 23:05 -0500 |
| Subject | No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar |
| Message-ID | <v299f7$2k9r2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334271 |
On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/17/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/17/2024 2:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > >>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A >>> bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what >>> we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified >>> fact' we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your >>> belief, your are not going to invalidate a proven theorem in >>> computation theory. You will convince nobody if no proof can be >>> supplied. >> >> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge >> of the semantics of the C programming language. >> >> > > > Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that > you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or > about what truth actually is. > > And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have me > repost the link I told you to post the Message ID or be construed as a liar and you chose the latter so I ignore all of your posts besides one. > (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try > to do some research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of > your claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway. > > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 07:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar |
| Message-ID | <v2a367$1ct7o$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334281 |
On 5/18/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/17/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/17/2024 2:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> >>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A >>>> bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what >>>> we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified >>>> fact' we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your >>>> belief, your are not going to invalidate a proven theorem in >>>> computation theory. You will convince nobody if no proof can be >>>> supplied. >>> >>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge >>> of the semantics of the C programming language. >>> >>> >> >> >> Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that >> you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or >> about what truth actually is. >> >> And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have >> me repost the link > > I told you to post the Message ID or be construed as a liar and > you chose the latter so I ignore all of your posts besides one. > And I told you the conditions you needed to meet for me to do this. Since you do not seem to believe your own statement enough to stand on it, your repeating the assertion is just an indication that you are just a pathological liar. FAIR WARNING. If you continue to ask for the link to this proof, I will consider it an acceptance of the Put up or Shut up challenge in its various forms, and then every time you make a similar claim about no one having refuted you or that something is self-evident, I (and everyone else) will have the right to point to this incident as proof that your claims are likely just based on a similar LIE. >> (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try to do some >> research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of your claim, >> so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway. >> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 07:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar |
| Message-ID | <v2a8cb$2pone$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334298 |
On 5/18/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/18/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/17/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/2024 2:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A
>>>>> bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is
>>>>> what we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes
>>>>> 'verified fact' we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with
>>>>> only your belief, your are not going to invalidate a proven theorem
>>>>> in computation theory. You will convince nobody if no proof can be
>>>>> supplied.
>>>>
>>>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>>>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means
>>> that you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming
>>> language, or about what truth actually is.
>>>
>>> And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have
>>> me repost the link
>>
>> I told you to post the Message ID or be construed as a liar and
>> you chose the latter so I ignore all of your posts besides one.
>>
>
> And I told you the conditions you needed to meet for me to do this.
>
> Since you do not seem to believe your own statement enough to stand on
> it, your repeating the assertion is just an indication that you are just
> a pathological liar.
>
> FAIR WARNING.
>
> If you continue to ask for the link to this proof, I will consider it an
> acceptance of the Put up or Shut up challenge in its various forms, and
> then every time you make a similar claim about no one having refuted you
> or that something is self-evident, I (and everyone else) will have the
> right to point to this incident as proof that your claims are likely
> just based on a similar LIE.
>
(1) You say that you have proof that D correctly simulated
by H reaches its final state at line 06 and halts.
(2) It is categorically impossible for such a proof to exist.
(3) One of these "proofs" provided an example of
{D never simulated by H} as meeting the requirement
of {Every D simulated by H} proving that you tell
falsehoods. On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
(4) Continued assertion that I am wrong without providing
such a proof will be considered actionable defamation.
(5) This equally applies to every instance in the future
of calling me a liar when you cannot even show that
I am incorrect. I am not a liar and I am not incorrect.
>
>>> (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try to do some
>>> research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of your
>>> claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 09:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar. Message ID Provided, so OLCOTT is the LIAR. |
| Message-ID | <v2a9hh$1ct7p$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334301 |
On 5/18/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/18/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/17/2024 2:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true.
>>>>>> A bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is
>>>>>> what we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes
>>>>>> 'verified fact' we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but
>>>>>> with only your belief, your are not going to invalidate a proven
>>>>>> theorem in computation theory. You will convince nobody if no
>>>>>> proof can be supplied.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>>>>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means
>>>> that you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming
>>>> language, or about what truth actually is.
>>>>
>>>> And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have
>>>> me repost the link
>>>
>>> I told you to post the Message ID or be construed as a liar and
>>> you chose the latter so I ignore all of your posts besides one.
>>>
>>
>> And I told you the conditions you needed to meet for me to do this.
>>
>> Since you do not seem to believe your own statement enough to stand on
>> it, your repeating the assertion is just an indication that you are
>> just a pathological liar.
>>
>> FAIR WARNING.
>>
>> If you continue to ask for the link to this proof, I will consider it
>> an acceptance of the Put up or Shut up challenge in its various forms,
>> and then every time you make a similar claim about no one having
>> refuted you or that something is self-evident, I (and everyone else)
>> will have the right to point to this incident as proof that your
>> claims are likely just based on a similar LIE.
>>
>
> (1) You say that you have proof that D correctly simulated
> by H reaches its final state at line 06 and halts.
>
> (2) It is categorically impossible for such a proof to exist.
>
> (3) One of these "proofs" provided an example of
> {D never simulated by H} as meeting the requirement
> of {Every D simulated by H} proving that you tell
> falsehoods. On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> (4) Continued assertion that I am wrong without providing
> such a proof will be considered actionable defamation.
>
> (5) This equally applies to every instance in the future
> of calling me a liar when you cannot even show that
> I am incorrect. I am not a liar and I am not incorrect.
Challenge Accepted.
Yes, you have claimed (1)
I have proven (2) incorrect, so your idea of "categorically impossible"
is obviously wrong, so anytime you use that world, I will henceforth be
authorized to point out that you have regularly LIED about this sort of
thing, apparently because you don't understand the concept, or are just
to ignorant of the facts.
(3) That isn't the proof of the condition you claim it to be, showing
that you do not understand the meaning of words and have a habit of
using Red Herrings and Strawmen to make your points.
(4) Message-id: <v0ulma$2qov4$1@i2pn2.org>
(5) Since I HAVE proved it, I CAN continue to call you a liar, but you
can't call me one, as I haven't, and so proved it.
>>
>>>> (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try to do some
>>>> research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of your
>>>> claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web