Re: Olcott is a Liar!

On 5/15/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
 

Proven wrong, and reckless ignored by you, making you into an ignorant pathological lying idiot.