Sujet : Re: Is Richard a Liar?
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 14. May 2024, 20:34:52
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v20ect$bki0$1@dont-email.me>
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
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/14/2024 2:01 PM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 14 May 2024 13:40:31 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 5/14/2024 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 14.mei.2024 om 19:52 schreef olcott:
On 5/14/2024 12:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 14.mei.2024 om 19:14 schreef olcott:
On 5/14/2024 11:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 14.mei.2024 om 17:45 schreef olcott:
On 5/14/2024 10:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 14.mei.2024 om 17:30 schreef olcott:
On 5/14/2024 10:08 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/14/2024 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-12 15:58:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 5/12/2024 10:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-12 11:34:17 +0000, Richard Damon said:
On 5/12/24 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-11 16:26:30 +0000, olcott said:
wtf is this ^
Before we can talk about this, first there must be 100% agreement
about:
1) What is a "verified fact"? Who needs to do the verification
before it can be said that it is a verified fact?
>
I am ONLY referring to expressions that are PROVEN to be {true
entirely on the basis of their meaning}.
*CONCRETE EXAMPLES*
How do we know that 2 + 3 = 5?
>
If needed we can write out the proof for this, starting from the
axioms for natural numbers. That proof is well known.
>
But nobody here knows the proof for your assertion above, that it is
a verified fact that it cannot reach past line 03. So, we would like
to see that proof. Just the claim that it has been proven is not
enough.
>
The "nobody here" you are referring to must be clueless about the
semantics of the C programming language.
>
Are you honest? Please, give the proof, instead of keeping away from
it.
I have been an expert C/C++ programmer for decades.
Oh, so it’s only yourself who’s the expert? I would like to see some of
your projects.
If you knew C will enough yourself you would comprehend that my claim
about:
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.
proof pls
*The only sufficient proof is being an expert in C yourself*
*Anyone that says that I am wrong without knowing C is dishonest*
My grandfather was a diagnostician and pathologist said: "You can't
argue with ignorance".
He must have known.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…