Sujet : Re: Olcott is a Liar!
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : sci.logic comp.theoryDate : 18. May 2024, 03:07:08
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v28uvs$1a3tk$11@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/17/24 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/17/2024 11:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
You should post pointers to the agreements.
The above is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient
knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
If you lack this sufficient knowledge then you are outside
of my target audience.
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 mere hearsay does
not count. Although the claim that some or your errors are not
C programming errors is fairly credible anyway.
>
The actual complete proof that I am correct is with the actual
semantics of the C programming language.
>
That you say so is good evidence that supports the claim that
you are wrong.
>
Evidence of a lack of credibility is much closer to an ad hominem
personal attack that any proof that I am incorrect. Proof that I
am incorrect only requires a single valid counter-example.
I told the one person claiming to have a single-valid counter-example
to provide the Message-ID of this counter-example or be construed as
a liar and they took the {construed as a liar} default option.
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.
The fact that you REFUSE to make the put up or shut up challanges means that you must think there is a chance that I am right (which is good, as I am) and that just means your repeat the claim in your unconditional style is just a reckless disregard for the truth, and thus you are proven to just be the ignorant damned pathologica liar.
…