Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.On 5/6/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*On 5/6/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:>On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:>If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows>
the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is different from the actual execution trace.
>
This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
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 }
>
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>
None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
>
Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
into the much more difficult computer science of this.
>
If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
>
Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06.
>
Thus, your claim is FALSE.
>
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
>
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
>
Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was refering to,
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.