Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!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: Fri, 17 May 2024 21:07:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v28v0g$1a3tk$15@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v21k9m$nao2$1@dont-email.me> <v22f9e$tjgs$1@dont-email.me>
 <v22i3t$u5vc$1@dont-email.me> <v22nq4$ven4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v22uc5$10vef$1@dont-email.me> <v22vh7$11dig$2@dont-email.me>
 <v231gd$11ppa$1@dont-email.me> <v234r2$12odu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v24njh$1gvck$2@dont-email.me> <v256n5$1kais$2@dont-email.me>
 <v257o1$1kd2t$1@dont-email.me> <v25aqg$1l575$2@dont-email.me>
 <v25krf$1nb8s$1@dont-email.me> <v25n16$1nr9a$1@dont-email.me>
 <v271ms$2339e$1@dont-email.me> <v27t7q$28hmg$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 01:07:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1380276"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v27t7q$28hmg$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2996
Lines: 25

On 5/17/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/17/2024 2:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>> Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A 
>> bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what 
>> we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified fact' 
>> we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your belief, 
>> your are not going to invalidate a proven theorem in computation 
>> theory. You will convince nobody if no proof can be supplied.
> 
> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
> of the semantics of the C programming language.
> 
> 


Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that 
you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or 
about what truth actually is.

And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have me 
repost the link (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try 
to do some research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of 
your claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway.