Re: Is Richard a Liar?

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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer