Re: Olcott is a Liar!

On 5/15/24 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-14 19:42:08 +0000, olcott said:
>

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*

>
I know what a proof is and I know what C is so I know that that is false.
>

 What I said was not precisely correct. None-the-less claiming that
I am wrong without knowing the subject matter is the
 https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
 of defamation cases and dishonest.
 Claiming that I am wrong knowing that no single valid counter-example
proving that I am wrong exists is dishonest and defamation.
 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.
 

I did, and you refuse to answer about it, proving you are just a pathological lying due to YOUR reckless disregard for the truth.
And, apparently you think I might have a case, as you aren't willing to accept the put up or snut up challange, as when you are shown wrong, your main weapon, claiming people haven't refuted you becomes an admission of lying.