Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar!

On 5/16/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2024 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-15 15:10:24 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/15/2024 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-14 19:34:52 +0000, olcott said:
>

*Anyone that says that I am wrong without knowing C is dishonest*

>
First you should prove that you know C.

>
Not at all. Not in the least. Deductive proofs cannot rely
on an argument from authority.

>
True but irrelevant. When someone sayes you are wrong, that does not
refer to any deductive proofs as you haven't presented deductive
proofs.

 None-the-less a single-valid-counter-example would prove that
I am wrong thus any claim that I am wrong lacking this required
valid counter-example is empty rhetoric entirely bereft of any
supporting reasoning: (EREBOASR).

And I GAVE IT, and you replied to the message but didn't rebut that part.

 Repeatedly claiming that I am wrong without providing the required
counter-example when this counter-example is repeatedly requested
(and categorically impossible) does meet the standard of a reckless
disregard for the truth.

And repeatedly claiming that I didn't do what I did just shows how ignorant you are.
As I have pointed out, if you really beleived I didn't say this, you could easily take up my challange as if you are right, I couldn't show what I didn't post.
But of course, taking that challange allows me to show how wrong you are and removes your biggest tool from you arsenal, the abiltiy to LIE about no one having proven you wrong (of course no one ut you beleive it)

 

In particular, what you said above isn't a deductive proof
but an attempt to refute deductive proofs and other counter arguments
with an ad hominem fallacy.
>

Anyone that knows C and claims that I am wrong either provides
the required single valid counter-example proving that I am
wrong or meets the
>
https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>
of defamation cases.

>
Saying that you are wrong hardly couts as defamation. Perhaps saying

 Repeatedly saying that I am wrong and calling me a liar when it
is categorically impossible that I am wrong IS DEFAMATION.

The bring suit, and when I show that I told the truth, YOU will need to pay for YOUR defamation.

 *One instance of H/D has been fully operational software*
*under Windows and Linux for two years*
 typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
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   return 0;
13 }
 In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
specified by the x86 instructions of D.
 This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of
H in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus
calling H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
 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 I have shown how to make a C program for H that does what you say is impossible, actually correctly simulating D to its final state on line 6.
Your repeated denying just prove how stupid you are and how little you actually value the truth.