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.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)