Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Olcott is a Liar!
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 22:15:39 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v215sb$12b7d$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1m4et$1iv85$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1m5co$lbo4$2@i2pn2.org> <v1m71h$1jnpi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1m7mh$lbo5$5@i2pn2.org> <v1mb8f$1kgpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1mkf8$lbo5$7@i2pn2.org> <v1mkmm$1q5ee$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1na6f$1ugl0$1@dont-email.me> <v1o67n$24f4c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1q1ie$2l40t$1@dont-email.me> <v1q9fp$qb0p$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1qmq8$2prs6$1@dont-email.me> <v1qouc$2qb2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vbpd$3gbc$1@dont-email.me> <v1vslr$7enr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vuor$24b2$1@news.muc.de> <v20027$865j$1@dont-email.me>
 <v200oo$843p$1@dont-email.me> <v200u2$8dd9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v202k0$8q16$1@dont-email.me> <v20654$9o07$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2086v$a4tr$1@dont-email.me> <v208db$a6jn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v20ak6$an12$1@dont-email.me> <v20b6v$akk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v20cf4$11h4n$3@i2pn2.org> <v20ect$bki0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 02:15:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1125613"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v20ect$bki0$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4941
Lines: 74

On 5/14/24 3:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2024 2:01 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 14 May 2024 13:40:31 -0500 schrieb 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:
>> wtf is this ^
>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>> Oh, so it’s only yourself who’s the expert? I would like to see some of
>> your projects.
>>
>>> 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.
>> proof pls
>>
> 
> *The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C yourself*
> *Anyone that says that I am wrong without knowing C is dishonest*

But I know C, likely better than you, and I can say you are just wrong, 
and have proven it, and you just lie that I didn't, because you are a 
pathological liar, which means we can't take ANYTHING you say at face 
value, even the level of "expretise" that you have.

I will say that looking at your code you have published in your "proof", 
I would at best put you as a junior programmer 1.

> 
>>> My grandfather was a diagnostician and pathologist said: "You can't
>>> argue with ignorance".
>> He must have known.
>>
>