On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence
>>>> can
>>>> be
>>>> both finite and infinite?
>>>
>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>>
>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>> against me.
>
> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
> are intentionally false,

*You can't provide any examples of such*
All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.

Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.

Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

*PREMISE*
*When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
*is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted*

01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }

*IS LOGICALLY ENTAILED FROM PREMISE*
Then every simulating termination analyzer H specified by
the above template correctly aborts its simulation of D
and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

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

In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>> be both finite and infinite?

>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.

>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>> against me.

>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>> are intentionally false,

> *You can't provide any examples of such*

How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem? Did you make such
a post or didn't you? If you did, it was a lie.

> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.

I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics. In your
posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.

> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.

No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.

> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

I suspect very much this is a lie, too. There's no sign of an infinite
set. There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
otherwise.

You know full well that it's not truthful.

[ .... ]

> --
> Copyright 2024 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).

On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>>> be both finite and infinite?
>
>>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>
>>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>>> against me.
>
>>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>>> are intentionally false,
>
>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>
> How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
> which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem? Did you make such
> a post or didn't you? If you did, it was a lie.
>
>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
> I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics. In your
> posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
> mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.
>
>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
> No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
> opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.
>
>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> I suspect very much this is a lie, too. There's no sign of an infinite
> set.

> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
> otherwise.
>
> You know full well that it's not truthful.

It is an objective fact that is a ridiculously stupid thing to say
There are many to be found on Google Scholar [termination analyzer]

*Here is the best one that I found*
https://aprove.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/interface/v-AProVE2023/c

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

On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 10:37 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
> > > > > Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a
> > > > > sequence
> > > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > both finite and infinite?
> > > >
> > > > He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar.
> > > > To be
> > > > a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
> > >
> > > Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit
> > > libel
> > > against me.
> >
> > I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you
> > said
> > are intentionally false,
>
> *You can't provide any examples of such*
> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> *PREMISE*
> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted*
>
> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
>

Q1. Does the H at line 11 return? What value?
Q2. Does the H at line 03 return? What value?

This basic question has been asked many times before.
Everybody understands C knows exactly what such short piece of
codes will behave. But you always present MADE-UP report, saying
things not what the program actually does.

Most importantly, you know you are not telling the truth because
you deliberately+very carefully EDIT the false reports.

> *IS LOGICALLY ENTAILED FROM PREMISE*
> Then every simulating termination analyzer H specified by
> the above template correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
>

On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 10:37 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
> > > > > Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a
> > > > > sequence
> > > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > both finite and infinite?
> > > >
> > > > He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar.
> > > > To be
> > > > a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
> > >
> > > Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit
> > > libel
> > > against me.
> >
> > I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you
> > said
> > are intentionally false,
>
> *You can't provide any examples of such*
> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> *PREMISE*
> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted*
>
> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
>

Q1. Does the H at line 11 return? What value?
Q2. Does the H at line 03 return? What value?

This basic question has been asked many times before.
Everybody understands C knows exactly what such short piece of
codes will behave. But you always present MADE-UP report, saying
things not what the program actually does.

Most importantly, you know you are not telling the truth because
you deliberately+very carefully EDIT the false reports.

> *IS LOGICALLY ENTAILED FROM PREMISE*
> Then every simulating termination analyzer H specified by
> the above template correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
>

On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 10:37 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
> > > > > Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a
> > > > > sequence
> > > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > both finite and infinite?
> > > >
> > > > He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar.
> > > > To be
> > > > a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
> > >
> > > Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit
> > > libel
> > > against me.
> >
> > I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you
> > said
> > are intentionally false,
>
> *You can't provide any examples of such*
> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> *PREMISE*
> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted*
>
> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }

Q1. Does the H at line 11 return? What value?
Q2. Does the H at line 03 return? What value?

This basic question has been asked many times before.
Everybody understands C knows exactly what such short piece of codes
will behave. But you always present MADE-UP report, saying things not
what the program actually does.

Most importantly, you know you are not telling the truth because you
deliberately+very carefully EDIT the false reports.

> *IS LOGICALLY ENTAILED FROM PREMISE*
> Then every simulating termination analyzer H specified by
> the above template correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
>

On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 10:37 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
> > > > > Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a
> > > > > sequence
> > > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > both finite and infinite?
> > > >
> > > > He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar.
> > > > To be
> > > > a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
> > >
> > > Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit
> > > libel
> > > against me.
> >
> > I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you
> > said
> > are intentionally false,
>
> *You can't provide any examples of such*
> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> *PREMISE*
> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted*
>
> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
>

Q1. Does the H at line 11 return? What value?
Q2. Does the H at line 03 return? What value?

This basic question has been asked many times before.
Everybody understands C knows exactly what such short piece of codes
will behave. But you always present MADE-UP report, saying things not
what the program actually does.

Most importantly, you know you are not telling the truth because you
deliberately+very carefully EDIT the false reports.

> *IS LOGICALLY ENTAILED FROM PREMISE*
> Then every simulating termination analyzer H specified by
> the above template correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
>

On 2/1/2024 1:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>>>>> be both finite and infinite?
>
>>>>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>
>>>>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>>>>> against me.
>
>>>>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>>>>> are intentionally false,
>
>>>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>
>>> How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
>>> which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem? Did you make such
>>> a post or didn't you? If you did, it was a lie.
>
>>>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>>>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
>>> I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics. In your
>>> posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
>>> mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.
>
>>>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>>>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>>>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
>>> No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
>>> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
>>> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
>>> opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.
>
>>>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>>>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>>>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
>>> I suspect very much this is a lie, too. There's no sign of an infinite
>>> set. There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>>> otherwise.

*Such a stupid things to say*
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer

>
>>> You know full well that it's not truthful.
>
>>> [ .... ]
>
>> I don't ACM much and definitely not in de.
>> I do ACM a little.
>
> That's incoherent and meaningless.
It a a joke based on your email address.

>
>> *Three PhD computer science professors agree*
>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>
> The plain straight answer is yes it does. More nuanced answers would say
> that practical computation is far more limited by other things.
>
> On what do these anonymous alleged computer science professors agree?
> That the question exists?
>

*They are not anonymous Dumbo. Read before you critique nitwit*
They are listed in the paper's references.

>> *Maybe you can try your libel on them*
>
> Get this straight: I don't libel and I don't tell lies on Usenet.
>
> Yesterday evening, I challenged you to deny having lied, and you failed
> to address the point. You write falsehoods on Usenet, and do so
> knowingly. There's a word for that.
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>

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

On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:

> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
> otherwise.
>
> You know full well that it's not truthful.

*Alan Mackenzie proves a callous disregard for the truth*
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer

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

In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:

>> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>> otherwise.

>> You know full well that it's not truthful.

> *Alan Mackenzie proves a callous disregard for the truth*
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer

I've asked you before not to abuse my name in post Subjects. It doesn't
belong there.

And no, I'm not going to look up vague references, particularly on
google.com, to which I've got no access anyway.

I think I have indeed proved a "callous disregard for the truth", namely
yours. In the last few posts, you have declined to deny an earlier
posting asserting you had coded turing machines which refute the halting
theorem. That was a lie when you posted it, and you are not going to
repeat the lie by denying it now.

You have a dishonest disregard for proven truth, such as the halting
theorem, or Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The lack of understanding
you show for them doesn't excuse you, given the number of times people
have attempted to put you right.

> --
> Copyright 2024 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).

On 2/1/2024 4:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>
>>> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>>> otherwise.
>
>>> You know full well that it's not truthful.
>
>> *Alan Mackenzie proves a callous disregard for the truth*
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer
>
> I've asked you before not to abuse my name in post Subjects. It doesn't
> belong there.
>
> And no, I'm not going to look up vague references, particularly on
> google.com, to which I've got no access anyway.
>
> I think I have indeed proved a "callous disregard for the truth", namely
> yours. In the last few posts, you have declined to deny an earlier
> posting asserting you had coded turing machines which refute the halting
> theorem. That was a lie when you posted it, and you are not going to
> repeat the lie by denying it now.

As long as you continue to libel me with callous disregard for
easily verified facts I will continue to call you out on this.

*WST 2023: 19th International Workshop on Termination*
https://easychair.org/cfp/WST2023

*Termination analysis without the tears*
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3453483.3454110

*Termination Analysis of Higher-Order Functional Programs*
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11575467_19

*Termination Analysis with Calling Context Graphs*
https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/home/pete/pub/cav-ccgs.pdf

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

On 2/1/2024 6:09 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 01/02/2024 22:14, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>>
>>>> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>>>> otherwise.
>>
>>>> You know full well that it's not truthful.
>>
>>> *Alan Mackenzie proves a callous disregard for the truth*
>>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer
>>
>> I've asked you before not to abuse my name in post Subjects.  It doesn't
>> belong there.
>
> Yeah, he does that to everone sooner or later.  It's just the way he
> is.  Perhaps he thinks he's shaming you into behaving better, I don't
> know, but of course anybody reading the thread just thinks "that PO -
> what a jerk...!"  (...which doesn't bother PO...)
>
>>
>> And no, I'm not going to look up vague references, particularly on
>> google.com, to which I've got no access anyway.
>>
>> I think I have indeed proved a "callous disregard for the truth", namely
>> yours.  In the last few posts, you have declined to deny an earlier
>> posting asserting you had coded turing machines which refute the halting
>> theorem.  That was a lie when you posted it, and you are not going to
>> repeat the lie by denying it now.
>>
>> You have a dishonest disregard for proven truth, such as the halting
>> theorem, or Gödel's incompleteness theorems.  The lack of understanding
>> you show for them doesn't excuse you, given the number of times people
>> have attempted to put you right.
>
> Well, to play devil's advocate, I'd say PO /honestly/ believes he has
> refuted all those theorems!
>
> Yes, people have explained to him why he's wrong, but he is genuinely
> intellectually incapable of understanding those explanations - they just
> wash over him like a babbling brook, and I doubt he even gets that the
> arguments are "logical", or that they differ in character from his own
> endless repetitions of his intuitions.  To PO both are just people
> "arguing their case".
>
> [A bit like a blind person who doesn't understand other people can "see"
> or comprehend what that involves, so believes he is as good an archer as
> other seeing people.  Worse the person has somehow convinced himself
> he's a world-class archer due to his supreme power of concentration, or
> whatever!! :) ]
>
> You may say, but if all that were really the case, what would be the
> point of engaging him in arguments like this?
>
>
> Mike.
>

https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
The philosophical underpinnings of analytical truth
prove that mathematical incompleteness is a misconception.

https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
When we understand that Haskell Curry proposes the notion
of True in a formal system means provable from the axioms
of this formal system it doesn't take a genius to see that
unprovable in PA simply means untrue in PA.

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

On 2/1/2024 6:09 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 01/02/2024 22:14, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>>
>>>> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>>>> otherwise.
>>
>>>> You know full well that it's not truthful.
>>
>>> *Alan Mackenzie proves a callous disregard for the truth*
>>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer
>>
>> I've asked you before not to abuse my name in post Subjects.  It doesn't
>> belong there.
>
> Yeah, he does that to everone sooner or later.

Mike: you didn't bother to pay attention that he
committed libel against me.

*He said that my claim that termination analyzers exist is a lie*

*WST 2023: 19th International Workshop on Termination*
https://easychair.org/cfp/WST2023

*Termination analysis without the tears*
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3453483.3454110

*Termination Analysis of Higher-Order Functional Programs*
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11575467_19

*Termination Analysis with Calling Context Graphs*
https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/home/pete/pub/cav-ccgs.pdf

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

On 2/1/24 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2024 6:09 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 01/02/2024 22:14, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>>>> You know full well that it's not truthful.
>>>
>>>> *Alan Mackenzie proves a callous disregard for the truth*
>>>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer
>>>
>>> I've asked you before not to abuse my name in post Subjects.  It doesn't
>>> belong there.
>>
>> Yeah, he does that to everone sooner or later.  It's just the way he
>> is.  Perhaps he thinks he's shaming you into behaving better, I don't
>> know, but of course anybody reading the thread just thinks "that PO -
>> what a jerk...!"  (...which doesn't bother PO...)
>>
>>>
>>> And no, I'm not going to look up vague references, particularly on
>>> google.com, to which I've got no access anyway.
>>>
>>> I think I have indeed proved a "callous disregard for the truth", namely
>>> yours.  In the last few posts, you have declined to deny an earlier
>>> posting asserting you had coded turing machines which refute the halting
>>> theorem.  That was a lie when you posted it, and you are not going to
>>> repeat the lie by denying it now.
>>>
>>> You have a dishonest disregard for proven truth, such as the halting
>>> theorem, or Gödel's incompleteness theorems.  The lack of understanding
>>> you show for them doesn't excuse you, given the number of times people
>>> have attempted to put you right.
>>
>> Well, to play devil's advocate, I'd say PO /honestly/ believes he has
>> refuted all those theorems!
>>
>> Yes, people have explained to him why he's wrong, but he is genuinely
>> intellectually incapable of understanding those explanations - they
>> just wash over him like a babbling brook, and I doubt he even gets
>> that the arguments are "logical", or that they differ in character
>> from his own endless repetitions of his intuitions.  To PO both are
>> just people "arguing their case".
>>
>> [A bit like a blind person who doesn't understand other people can
>> "see" or comprehend what that involves, so believes he is as good an
>> archer as other seeing people.  Worse the person has somehow convinced
>> himself he's a world-class archer due to his supreme power of
>> concentration, or whatever!! :) ]
>>
>> You may say, but if all that were really the case, what would be the
>> point of engaging him in arguments like this?
>>
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>
>
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
> The philosophical underpinnings of analytical truth
> prove that mathematical incompleteness is a misconception.

Nope.

Proves YOU don't understand what truth is.

>
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
> When we understand that Haskell Curry proposes the notion
> of True in a formal system means provable from the axioms
> of this formal system it doesn't take a genius to see that
> unprovable in PA simply means untrue in PA.
>
>

Except that wasn't what Haskell Curry was proposing.

Your Idol just lies, like you. Perhaps because he is just badly misinformed.

On 2/1/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2024 6:09 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 01/02/2024 22:14, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>>>> You know full well that it's not truthful.
>>>
>>>> *Alan Mackenzie proves a callous disregard for the truth*
>>>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer
>>>
>>> I've asked you before not to abuse my name in post Subjects.  It doesn't
>>> belong there.
>>
>> Yeah, he does that to everone sooner or later.
>
> Mike: you didn't bother to pay attention that he
> committed libel against me.
>
> *He said that my claim that termination analyzers exist is a lie*

But it IS a lie, since you claim it to be in relation to Halt Deciders.

So, you are just lying by misuse of context.

>
> *WST 2023: 19th International Workshop on Termination*
> https://easychair.org/cfp/WST2023
>
> *Termination analysis without the tears*
> https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3453483.3454110
>
> *Termination Analysis of Higher-Order Functional Programs*
> https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11575467_19
>
> *Termination Analysis with Calling Context Graphs*
> https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/home/pete/pub/cav-ccgs.pdf
>
>

And all of these admit to the limitations of Termination analysis, you
don't.

So, you DO lie.

It has been proven.

In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/2024 4:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:

>>>> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>>>> otherwise.

>>>> You know full well that it's not truthful.

>>> *Alan Mackenzie proves a callous disregard for the truth*
>>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer

>> I've asked you before not to abuse my name in post Subjects. It doesn't
>> belong there.

>> And no, I'm not going to look up vague references, particularly on
>> google.com, to which I've got no access anyway.

>> I think I have indeed proved a "callous disregard for the truth", namely
>> yours. In the last few posts, you have declined to deny an earlier
>> posting asserting you had coded turing machines which refute the halting
>> theorem. That was a lie when you posted it, and you are not going to
>> repeat the lie by denying it now.

> As long as you continue to libel me with callous disregard for
> easily verified facts I will continue to call you out on this.

You can call me out if you like, but harrassing people by putting their
names in the Subject: line is not a nice thing to do. I wonder what
Eternal September would think about that.

I'm also not libelling you. You have had the opportunity to set the
record straight over that alleged post from some years ago, but have
failed to do so. I think I'm justified in concluding that you lied in
that post, knowingly and deliberately.

As for termination analysers, you have used the term merely as an
imprecise synonym for halt deciders. These, indeed, do not exist, and
that was what I meant when I said the termination analysers do not exist.
If you really meant something different in your use of that term, then
please accept my apologies, and explain precisely what you did mean.

That you can can enter "termination analyzer" into a search engine and
come up with some matches from other contexts is clear.

[ .... ]

> --
> Copyright 2024 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).

On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>>> be both finite and infinite?
>
>>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>
>>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>>> against me.
>
>>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>>> are intentionally false,
>
>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>
> How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
> which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem? Did you make such
> a post or didn't you? If you did, it was a lie.
>
>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
> I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics. In your
> posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
> mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.
>
>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
> No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
> opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.
>
>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> I suspect very much this is a lie, too. There's no sign of an infinite
> set.

> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
> otherwise.
>

*As long as you continue to libel me with callous disregard for*
*easily verified facts I will continue to call you out on this*

*WST 2023: 19th International Workshop on Termination*
https://easychair.org/cfp/WST2023

*Termination analysis without the tears*
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3453483.3454110

*Termination Analysis of Higher-Order Functional Programs*
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11575467_19

*Termination Analysis with Calling Context Graphs*
https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/home/pete/pub/cav-ccgs.pdf

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

On 2/2/24 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>>>> be both finite and infinite?
>>
>>>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>>
>>>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>>>> against me.
>>
>>>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>>>> are intentionally false,
>>
>>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>>
>> How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
>> which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem?  Did you make such
>> a post or didn't you?  If you did, it was a lie.
>>
>>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>>
>> I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics.  In your
>> posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
>> mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.
>>
>>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>>
>> No.  Unintentionally false statements are not lying.  But deliberately
>> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying.  With
>> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
>> opinion".  Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.
>>
>>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>>
>> I suspect very much this is a lie, too.  There's no sign of an infinite
>> set.
>
>> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>> otherwise.
>>
>
> *As long as you continue to libel me with callous disregard for*
> *easily verified facts I will continue to call you out on this*
>
> *WST 2023: 19th International Workshop on Termination*
> https://easychair.org/cfp/WST2023
>
> *Termination analysis without the tears*
> https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3453483.3454110
>
> *Termination Analysis of Higher-Order Functional Programs*
> https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11575467_19
>
> *Termination Analysis with Calling Context Graphs*
> https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/home/pete/pub/cav-ccgs.pdf
>

It is not LIBEL if the claim is true,

Read the papers you point to.

NONE claim what you claim for your "termination analyser", so are not
applicable to your claim.

YOU FAIL.

On 2/2/2024 10:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/2/24 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>>>>> be both finite and infinite?
>>>
>>>>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>>>
>>>>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>>>>> against me.
>>>
>>>>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>>>>> are intentionally false,
>>>
>>>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>>>
>>> How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing
>>> machines
>>> which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem?  Did you make
>>> such
>>> a post or didn't you?  If you did, it was a lie.
>>>
>>>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>>>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>>>
>>> I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics.  In
>>> your
>>> posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
>>> mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.
>>>
>>>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>>>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>>>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>>>
>>> No.  Unintentionally false statements are not lying.  But deliberately
>>> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying.  With
>>> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
>>> opinion".  Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.
>>>
>>>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>>>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>>>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>>>
>>> I suspect very much this is a lie, too.  There's no sign of an infinite
>>> set.
>>
>>> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> *As long as you continue to libel me with callous disregard for*
>> *easily verified facts I will continue to call you out on this*
>>
>> *WST 2023: 19th International Workshop on Termination*
>> https://easychair.org/cfp/WST2023
>>
>> *Termination analysis without the tears*
>> https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3453483.3454110
>>
>> *Termination Analysis of Higher-Order Functional Programs*
>> https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11575467_19
>>
>> *Termination Analysis with Calling Context Graphs*
>> https://www.khoury.northeastern.edu/home/pete/pub/cav-ccgs.pdf
>>
>
> It is not LIBEL if the claim is true,
>

*Your ADD prevents you from paying attention*
He claimed that there is no such thing as any termination
analyzer at all and I was lying for saying this.

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

On 31/01/24 17:37, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence
>>>>> can
>>>>> be
>>>>> both finite and infinite?
>>>>
>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>>>
>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>> against me.
>>
>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>> are intentionally false,
>
> *You can't provide any examples of such*
> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> *PREMISE*
> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly* > *stop running unless aborted*

When one understands that 1+1=3 it is obvious that 2+2=6.