XPost: sci.logic

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.

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