Re: Is Richard a Liar?

[ 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, 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.

*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.

*When we stay on the actual topic of this post then*
*the following must be directly addressed and not ignored*

You don't get to decide what the topic of a post is.

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

*When Richard interprets*

*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*

as *D NEVER simulated by H*

Richard is saying
for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least
one element of "D NEVER simulated by H"

Can this be an honest mistake?

It's a mistake, honest or otherwise, on your part.

For a start, you're citing your distortion of Richard's words rather than
his original words, so it's no basis for any discussion.  This just
smacks of dishonesty.

If I understand correctly, you're referring to one of Richard's posts
where he used a reductio ad absurdum as a rejection of your idea of
aborting simulations.  You have said that you can abort a simulation
after a few steps and return the result "non halting"; Richard has
merely questioned why you can't abort the simulation with even fewer
steps, in particular none.

You're arguing that the abortion after no steps is invalid.  Richard is
countering that an abortion after N steps is equally invalid for the same
reason.  If you think that aborting after zero steps is invalid, but for
some reason aborting after N > 0 steps is valid, then you should explain
why.  You should say what is the minimum valid value for N.  I don't
think you have done either, yet.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).