Re: Is Richard a Liar?

On 5/15/2024 1:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ 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.
 

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv0ummt%242qov3%242%40i2pn2.org%3E On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
 >> Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running
 >> unless aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior
 >> to H. When H aborts this simulation that does not count as
 >> D halting.
 >
 > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
 >
 > It means that
 >
 > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
 >     return 0;
 > }
 >
 > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
 > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
 > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
 >
 > Unless you clarify your altered definitions, H is what H is
 > and that just becomes the conclusion.
 >
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
 >> Every D simulated by H ...
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
 >     return 0;
 > }
If you disagree with this translation you must point out the error:
*Translating the above using quantifiers: 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?
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer