Re: Is Richard a Liar? No!

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/15/2024 9:54 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/15/2024 8:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

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:

[ .... ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

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 }

[ .... ]

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.

I see evidence to the contrary.  You may have dabbled in C twenty
years ago, or so, but if you were an expert C/C++ programmer, you
would not have written those twelve lines so carelessly that they
don't even compile.

*I have told you that this is a template previously*

Whatever that might mean, you have asserted (or at least implied) that
that code was written in C, whether you call it a template or not.

You are not an expert in C, see above.  Given your known penchant for
telling untruths,

That by itself is defamation.

Not if it's true.

No one has even proven that my statements are false.

Ben has.  You asserted to Ben some while ago that you had fully worked
out turing machines which would contradict some well known proof of the
halting theorem.  That turned out to be a lie.

The usual "proof" that my statements are false is empty rhetoric
entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning or ad hominem attacks.

That's not the way I see things.  You make things up, then assert on this
newsgroup that they are "verified facts".  These things are false.

Relying in such "evidence" is the reckless disregard for the truth
of defamation.

I'm very concerned that truth prevails.  That's why I counter your
falsehoods from time to time.

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html

there is nothing posted in this newsgroup suggesting
you have expertise in C coding, and much suggesting the contrary.

*Ignoring this are repeating the above claims are the*
*reckless disregard for the truth of defamation cases*

Then sue me for defamation.  You might have to learn a bit of German,
first.

When I prove that IT IS defamation (as I have) that destroys your
credibility.

I think we've established you don't understand the notion of proof, so I
can't say I'm worried by the prospect.

*Failing to provide the single counter-example required to show*
*that I am incorrect because you know such a counter-example*
*does not exist IS DEFAMATION*

A counter example to an assertion about some code that doesn't even
compile?  Quite honestly, I can't be bothered.  Richard has already given
one.  Besides, the burden of proof for your assertion lies on you.  You
have given no proof, so far, and as already stated, you likely don't even
understand what the word proof means.

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html

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 }

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.

And that last sentence is (yet another) lie.

That you call it a lie without any evidence that it is
false IS DEFAMATION.

The evidence is your inability to establish any verification whatsoever
for that "simple software engineering fact".  We both know by now that
that assertion has had no verification by anybody, and that a counter
example to it has been posted on this newsgroup.

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

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).