Re: Olcott is a Liar!

On 5/17/24 2:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2024 11:27 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-16 15:34:48 +0000, olcott said:
>

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).

>
Wrong, as explained above. More specifically, the word "thus" is
false.
>

 Apparently you are unable to discern the distinct difference between
a sound deductive proof and ad hominem evidence that I seem to lack
credibility.
 

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.

>
There is nothing wrong in a repeated truth. Moreover, a disagreement
is not any disregrad for the truth. As being wrong is not a sin or
crime (at least in työical cases) saying that you are wrong may or
may not be a crime, depending on the laws of the place and time.
>

 Saying that I am a liar when anyone with sufficient understanding
of the semantics of the C programming language understands that
I have proved that I am correct does meet the required reckless
disregard for the truth standard of defamation cases.

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.
So, you HAVE been shown to be a LIAR.

 

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.

>
That may vary, as does whether defamation is a crime.

 It is a take way all of your money situation.
Fox (fake) News found this out the hard way.
https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-trump-2020-0ac71f75acfacc52ea80b3e747fb0afe

But, since I can prove that I have proved it, your don't have a case.
And YOU are the one guilty of 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.

>
Every D(D) of the above pattern reaches the line 03 and if
H is a decider it reaches the line 04, too.

 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.
 Whether H is a decider or not the set of every H/D pair where D is
correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated
final state at line 06 and halt.

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.
Thus, you are just proved to be a pathological liar.

 

Whether H(D,D)
simulates that far (or at all) is a feature of H that is not
shown in the C code above.
>
About being a simple software engineering verified fact,
who is the simple software engineer who vefrified it?
>

 *I made my words more clear and precise*
The above is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient
knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
 

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 thus it is self-evedently clear that you don't have sufficient knowledge of the C programming language, or even about what is truth.