Re: Olcott is a Liar!

On 5/17/24 3:34 PM, olcott wrote:

Again no proof. But it seems that olcott is slowly starting to understand that it is not self-evident, because he now shows a small beginning of an attempt for a proof. It is a pity for him that he ignored the rest of my post where I told him a brief outline for a proof.
What we still miss are the requirements for H.

 I try to do the best that I can to write my words so that even people
with attention deficit disorder (ADD) can understand them.
 The ONLY requirement for H as I have said many many hundreds of times
is that H simulates D.
 The self-evident meaning of what D correctly simulated by H means is
now specified so that people trying as hard as possible to make sure
to find any loophole to intentionally misinterpret my words will look
much more foolish.

Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or about what truth actually is.
And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have me repost the link (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try to do some research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of your claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway.
And you are proven to just be an ignorant damned pathological liar.

 

A working example is not enough to define an infinite set of H. So, define the requirements.
>

 I did and always have. Possibly not well enough for people having
ADD that can hardly pay any attention. Not well enough for people
having insufficient knowledge of the semantics of C.

But YOU are the one shown to not have sufficient knowledge, since I proved it two weeks ago.

 

Then, do not only claim that there is a simulation invariant, but prove it.

 Prove that 2 + 3 = 5 to someone that does not know what numbers are.
No need for any proof for people that understand arithmetic.
 

Of course you need to master a language to express such a proof. If you don't master such a language, try to learn it. Claiming, without evidence, that it is self-evident is not part of the correct language.
>

 If you have ADD and can't pay attention or do not know the semantics
of C well enough to understand that I have proved my point I don't
know what I can do to help you understand that what I have said has
always been self-evidently true for everyone having sufficient
knowledge of the semantics of C.

Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or about what truth actually is.
And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have me repost the link (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try to do some research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of your claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway.
And you are proven to just be an ignorant damned pathological liar.

 Tell me which part you don't understand and I might be able to help.
If you have no idea what infinite recursion is then I cannot help.
 

Then explain how H determines that there is a recursive simulation, so that it can abort the simulation.
>

 *That is not any part of what I claimed above*
*That is not any part of what I claimed above*
*That is not any part of what I claimed above*
 *You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words*
*You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words*
*You must pay 100% complete attention to my exact words*
 If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help.
If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help.
If you don't have that much attention span, I can't help.