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: Is Richard a Liar? No! (Glad you argree)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 20:24:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v23joa$15707$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1q9fp$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>
 <v22e19$2u32$1@news.muc.de> <v22gad$tjgs$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 00:24:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1219591"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v22gad$tjgs$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4513
Lines: 90

On 5/15/24 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2024 8:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> I see evidence to the contrary. 
> 
> *Switching away from the topic of the post is not a rebuttal*
> *Switching away from the topic of the post is not a rebuttal*
> *Switching away from the topic of the post is not a rebuttal*


You do it all the time

> 
> 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:
> 
> *When Richard interprets*
> 
> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted by H*
> 
> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
> 
> Richard is saying
> for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least
> one element of "D NEVER simulated by H"
> 
> Can this be an honest mistake?
> 

Nope, not a mistake at all, as explained many times, the message posted 
was NOT the one showing that some H could simualate past the point, 
which I proved elsewhere, but is showing that even if your claim was 
correct, the logic your H uses is flawed, and the program descrxibed 
here does a BETTER job than yours, as it simulates ALL the instructions 
that it simuulates correctly, and then used questionable logic, instead 
of incorrectly simulating the last instruction (the call H) as part of 
your incorrect logic.

All correct is better that some incorrect.

I have proved your statement incorrect, 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.