Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! (Glad you argree)

On 5/15/24 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:

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

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
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.

 *Switching away from the topic of the post is not a rebuttal*
*Switching away from the topic of the post is not a rebuttal*
*Switching away from the topic of the post is not a rebuttal*

You do it all the time

 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?
 

Nope, not a mistake at all, as explained many times, the message posted was NOT the one showing that some H could simualate past the point, which I proved elsewhere, but is showing that even if your claim was correct, the logic your H uses is flawed, and the program descrxibed here does a BETTER job than yours, as it simulates ALL the instructions that it simuulates correctly, and then used questionable logic, instead of incorrectly simulating the last instruction (the call H) as part of your incorrect logic.
All correct is better that some incorrect.
I have proved your statement incorrect, and you refuse to answer about it, proving you are just a pathological lying due to YOUR reckless disregard for the truth.
And, apparently you think I might have a case, as you aren't willing to accept the put up or snut up challange, as when you are shown wrong, your main weapon, claiming people haven't refuted you becomes an admission of lying.