Sujet : Re: Is Richard a Liar?
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.com (joes)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 15. May 2024, 07:27:50
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v21kl6$12vbs$1@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
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.)
-- joes
Re: Is Richard a Liar?
Re: Olcott is a Liar!
