Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar. Message ID Provided, so OLCOTT is the LIAR.

On 5/18/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/18/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/18/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/17/24 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2024 2:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>

Again no proof. Now the excuse is that it is self-evidently true. A bad excuse, because it is self-evident only for olcott. That is what we call belief. It shows again that when olcott writes 'verified fact' we should read 'my belief'. Sorry, olcott, but with only your belief, your are not going to invalidate a proven theorem in computation theory. You will convince nobody if no proof can be supplied.

>
It 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

>
I told you to post the Message ID or be construed as a liar and
you chose the latter so I ignore all of your posts besides one.
>

>
And I told you the conditions you needed to meet for me to do this.
>
Since you do not seem to believe your own statement enough to stand on it, your repeating the assertion is just an indication that you are just a pathological liar.
>
FAIR WARNING.
>
If you continue to ask for the link to this proof, I will consider it an acceptance of the Put up or Shut up challenge in its various forms, and then every time you make a similar claim about no one having refuted you or that something is self-evident, I (and everyone else) will have the right to point to this incident as proof that your claims are likely just based on a similar LIE.
>

 (1) You say that you have proof that D correctly simulated
     by H reaches its final state at line 06 and halts.
 (2) It is categorically impossible for such a proof to exist.
 (3) One of these "proofs" provided an example of
    {D never simulated by H} as meeting the requirement
    of {Every D simulated by H} proving that you tell
    falsehoods. On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 (4) Continued assertion that I am wrong without providing
     such a proof will be considered actionable defamation.
 (5) This equally applies to every instance in the future
     of calling me a liar when you cannot even show that
     I am incorrect. I am not a liar and I am not incorrect.

Challenge Accepted.
Yes, you have claimed (1)
I have proven (2) incorrect, so your idea of "categorically impossible" is obviously wrong, so anytime you use that world, I will henceforth be authorized to point out that you have regularly LIED about this sort of thing, apparently because you don't understand the concept, or are just to ignorant of the facts.
(3) That isn't the proof of the condition you claim it to be, showing that you do not understand the meaning of words and have a habit of using Red Herrings and Strawmen to make your points.
(4) Message-id: <v0ulma$2qov4$1@i2pn2.org>
(5) Since I HAVE proved it, I CAN continue to call you a liar, but you can't call me one, as I haven't, and so proved it.

>

(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.
>
>

>

>