Re: Olcott is a Liar!

On 5/15/24 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2024 12:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/15/2024 9:54 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/15/2024 8:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

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:

>

[ .... ]

>

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>

[ .... ]

>

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 }

>

[ .... ]

>

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.

>

I see evidence to the contrary.  You may have dabbled in C twenty
years ago, or so, but if you were an expert C/C++ programmer, you
would not have written those twelve lines so carelessly that they
don't even compile.

>

*I have told you that this is a template previously*

>

Whatever that might mean, you have asserted (or at least implied) that
that code was written in C, whether you call it a template or not.

>

You are not an expert in C, see above.  Given your known penchant for
telling untruths,

>

That by itself is defamation.

>
Not if it's true.
>

No one has even proven that my statements are false.

>
Ben has.  You asserted to Ben some while ago that you had fully worked
out turing machines which would contradict some well known proof of the
halting theorem.  That turned out to be a lie.
>

The usual "proof" that my statements are false is empty rhetoric
entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning or ad hominem attacks.

>
That's not the way I see things.  You make things up, then assert on this
newsgroup that they are "verified facts".  These things are false.
>

 Please point to anything that I claimed to be a verified
fact in the last two years that proved to be false.
 Failing to do this will be construed as a reckless disregard for
the truth for any and all future claims that I am incorrect.

Will you talk the challenge, and agree to stop your stupid claims?
Or is this just more of your worthless rhetoric?

 

Relying in such "evidence" is the reckless disregard for the truth
of defamation.

>
I'm very concerned that truth prevails.  That's why I counter your
falsehoods from time to time.
>

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html

>

there is nothing posted in this newsgroup suggesting
you have expertise in C coding, and much suggesting the contrary.

>

*Ignoring this are repeating the above claims are the*
*reckless disregard for the truth of defamation cases*

>

Then sue me for defamation.  You might have to learn a bit of German,
first.

>

When I prove that IT IS defamation (as I have) that destroys your
credibility.

>
I think we've established you don't understand the notion of proof, so I
can't say I'm worried by the prospect.
>

 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 }
 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.
 I do understand that a correct refutation of the above
requires a single valid counter-example. I am sure that
you understand this too.
 

I did, and you refuse to answer about it, proving you are just a pathological lying due to YOUR reckless disregard for the truth.
And, apparently you think I might have a case, as you aren't willing to accept the put up or snut up challange, as when you are shown wrong, your main weapon, claiming people haven't refuted you becomes an admission of lying.