Re: Is Richard a Liar?

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?
How do we know tHat cats are animals?

2) The definition of D is clear as a template. But are we discussing the template, or are we discussing separate instantiations of D for different H? The discussion shows that this point is not 100% clear.

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.

3) What is the meaning of the word "simulated"? The discussion shows that there is no 100% agreement about it.

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.

4) What are the exact requirements for H? The discussion shows that it is not 100% clear what olcott's ideas are for H. This may be divided in a few sub-subjects:
4a) How does it determine that the simulation is recursive?
4b) What are the conditions to determine non-halting behaviour?
4c) Why does an aborted simulation indicate non-halting behaviour?
4d) Is H an infinite set, or is it olcott's H?
 

*NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL QUESTION*
Can any H/D pair matching the above template
[where D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls]
possibly reach past its own line 03?

So, we should first get 100% agreement about each of these subjects, before we can proceed to the above claim of olcott.
 So, maybe olcott can start with 1: How do we agree that something is a "verified fact".
 

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