XPost: sci.logic

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.

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