Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/21/2025 9:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

[ .... ]

Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
using.

This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.

It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as it should.

It is also honest and truthful that people
that deny verified facts are either liars
or lack sufficient technical competence.

What you call "verified facts" are generally nothing of the kind.  They
are merely things, often false, you would like to be true.

*One key example of a denied verified fact is when Joes said*

On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:

very obvious that HHH cannot simulate
DDD past the call to HHH.

Joes is quite right, here, as has been said to you many times over by
several people.

HHH(DDD) does emulate itself emulating DDD

You will have a get out clause from the vagueness of your language, which
could be construed to mean practically anything.  But it is a lie to say
that "HHH(DDD) ... emulating DDD" is a verified fact.  If I am mistaken
there, just say who has done the verification, how, and when.

After I have conclusively proven:

https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

You frequently deny verified facts.  You "deny" established definitions.
It has been established on this newsgroup that you have lied on it.

That statement is libelous.

It might be libellous if it were false.

No one can even point to a false statement that I made, thus cannot
point to an intentionally false statement that I made.

I just pointed one out where you mendaciously state "One key example of a
... verified fact is ...", and then citing something which wasn't a
verified fact.

More seriously, you told Ben Bacarisse on this newsgroup that you had
fully worked out turing machines which broke a proof of the Halting
Theorem.  It transpired you were lying.  When the topic came up again for
discussion, you failed to deny writing the original lie.

Feel free to cut-and-paste a time/date stamped quote
of anything that I said that you have construed as false.

I've got better things to do with my time.

Several times it has become apparent that your technical programming
competence leaves a lot to be desired.

I did make one key mistake when referring to
lines-of-code versus statements in C.

At one time you repeatedly posted the source code of a C function with a
syntax error in it, despite being repeatedly advised of this, and even
what the error was.

Consistent honesty and truthfulness is what I have hoped for from you for
a long time, now.  With it, we could have a productive exchange of views.
I doubt we will ever see this, though.

I would love to have this with you. I have initially
assessed that you may be very competent.

You may take it that I fully competent in C programming, amongst other
things.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).