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: Wed, 15 May 2024 20:25:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v23jq0$15707$21@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v20eg6$bn7u$1@dont-email.me> <v20eqg$bki0$2@dont-email.me>
 <v20g5p$c1lu$1@dont-email.me> <v20gld$c8gh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v21kl6$12vbs$1@i2pn2.org> <v22fmm$tjgs$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 00:25:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1219591"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v22fmm$tjgs$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5968
Lines: 109

On 5/15/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2024 1:27 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 14 May 2024 15:13:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2024 3:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 14.mei.2024 om 21:42 schreef olcott:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>
>>>> Again no trace of a proof.
>>>> Do you understand what a proof is?
>>>> The proof of 2+3=5 is not 'Being a mathematician'.
>>>> You give the impression that you are clueless about how to prove it.
>>>>
>>> The proof of 2 + 3 = 5 is through comprehending arithmetic.
>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend arithmetic.
>>>
>>> Likewise my proof is through comprehending the semantics of C.
>>> It cannot be proved to anyone failing to comprehend the semantics of C.
>>
>> Then what are you doing here if nobody understands C.
>> (You could at least try to explain it.)
>>
> 
> *It is fine to not understand it*
> 
> *It is defamation to disagree with it*
> *knowing that one does not understand it*
> 
> *If one does understand it and uses deception*
> *to disagree This too is defamation*
> 
> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
> 
> *Here you go*
> 
> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
> 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 }
> 
> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs 
> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
> 
> These H/D pairs can be enumerated by the one to ∞ simulated steps of D 
> and involve zero to ∞ recursive simulations of H simulating itself 
> simulating D(D).
> 
> *Execution Trace*
> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
> 
> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
> Line 01
> Line 02
> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
> 
> *Simulation invariant*
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
> 
> 

Proven wrong, and reckless ignored by you, making you into an ignorant 
pathological lying idiot.