Re: Is Richard a Liar?

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.

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

 

*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.

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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer