Re: Is Richard a Liar?

[ 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.

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

In one case he "interpreted"
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*

as *D NEVER simulated by H*
I do not see how this can be an honest mistake, do you?

Yes.  It is an honest mistake on your part.  You have introduced the
notion of partially simulating a machine then aborting the simulation.
How many operation must, at a minimum, be simulated?  You have never
specified any minimum, so simulating no operations followed by an
abortion is just as valid as simulating 5,000,000, or 500, or even just
one or two.  Your lack of mathematical background is letting you down,
here.

for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least
one element of "D NEVER simulated by H"

Note that this "early abortion" was never Richard's main counter example
to your assertion (a).  That was something else some days ago, which you
responded to, yet never addressed.

I think you should find this post and address it now, or apologize to
Richard for bad mouthing him over this topic.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).