Re: Olcott is a Liar!

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.
>