Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant

On 7/3/24 9:29 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 11:05 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:03:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:

>

You continue to assume that you can simply disagree with the x86
language. My memory was refreshed that called you stupid would be a
sin according to Christ.

Better repent then.
>

But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?

You keep trying to get away with saying that the simulation is incorrect
when the semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves that it is
correct.

What semantics proves that HHH doesn’t halt?
Can you show the C code where it aborts?
>

Yes but I won't.

>
Because it proves you wrong!
>

 I updated my repository yet will not cast my pearls before swine.
I have totally proven my case three years ago and only liars
will disagree.
 

In other words, this is just like you LIE about the DIagonalization proof which you ADMITTED you could produce and that such a proof, like you said existed, was just nonsense.
Thus, you have shown that you logic is just based on NONSENSE.
You are just a natural ignorant pathological lying idiot.