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 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.

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.

On 2/1/2024 11:57 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 10:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
SNIP
>> You might have a degree in Mathematics but it's clear that you (and most
>> of the people contributing to these inane threads) have never read
>> "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. The book is immensely
>> enjoyable and is highly recommended.
>
> Maybe. Supposing I were to study this book earnestly, what would I learn
> that is relevant to the current inane thread?
Alan, now that I answered the above question in a sister post, are you
going to find out more about the book on your own?
--
Jeff Barnett

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).

Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/2024 11:57 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/31/2024 10:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
> SNIP
>>> You might have a degree in Mathematics but it's clear that you (and most
>>> of the people contributing to these inane threads) have never read
>>> "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. The book is immensely
>>> enjoyable and is highly recommended.

>> Maybe. Supposing I were to study this book earnestly, what would I learn
>> that is relevant to the current inane thread?
> Alan, now that I answered the above question in a sister post, are you
> going to find out more about the book on your own?

Almost certainly not, I'm afraid. It's a long time since I seriously
read any maths; I'm doing other things, now.

But forgive me when I get annoyed when people disparage learning and
expertise. That has been going on on this newsgroups for a long time,
now.

> --
> Jeff Barnett

--
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.

On 1/02/24 04:26, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/31/24 9:47 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 21:27 -0500, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> You also need int main(), as void main() is undefined behavior unless
>>> the implementation is SPECIFICALLY "Free Standing" and defines that
>>> void
>>> main is ok.
>>
>> Technically, the HP has been silently modified to addressing
>> 'function'.
>>
>> If you are talking about "C". I think "void main()" is valid,
>> but not sure.
>>
>
> 5.1.2.2.1p1
>
> The function called at program startup is named main. The implementation
> declares no prototype for this function. It shall be defined with a
> return type of int and with no parameters:
>
> int main(void) { /* ... */ }
>
> or with two parameters (referred to here as argc and argv, though any
> names may be used, as they
> are local to the function in which they are declared):
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }
>
> or equivalent;10)
>
>

It's needless pedantry in this case. The worst that happens with "void
main()" on any serious compiler is that the return value is unspecified.
And in this case, nobody cares which value it returns.

On 1/02/24 03:44, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 8:16 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>> *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.
>
> Q2 proves otherwise.
> It is like asking: Does this code print "Equals":
>   if (3 == 5)
>     printf("Equals\n");
>
>> But you always present MADE-UP report, saying things not
>> what the program actually does.
>>
>
> *H examines the execution trace of the x86 code of D*
> H simulates D in debug-step mode

Wrong, actually. When D gets to DebugStep, H fails to look at the code
inside DebugStep and simulate that code. Instead, it simulates some
other code which is not the actual code.

On 2/5/24 2:41 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/02/24 04:26, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/31/24 9:47 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 21:27 -0500, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You also need int main(), as void main() is undefined behavior unless
>>>> the implementation is SPECIFICALLY "Free Standing" and defines that
>>>> void
>>>> main is ok.
>>>
>>> Technically, the HP has been silently modified to addressing
>>> 'function'.
>>>
>>> If you are talking about "C". I think "void main()" is valid,
>>> but not sure.
>>>
>>
>> 5.1.2.2.1p1
>>
>> The function called at program startup is named main. The
>> implementation declares no prototype for this function. It shall be
>> defined with a return type of int and with no parameters:
>>
>> int main(void) { /* ... */ }
>>
>> or with two parameters (referred to here as argc and argv, though any
>> names may be used, as they
>> are local to the function in which they are declared):
>>
>> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }
>>
>> or equivalent;10)
>>
>>
>
> It's needless pedantry in this case. The worst that happens with "void
> main()" on any serious compiler is that the return value is unspecified.
> And in this case, nobody cares which value it returns.

Actually, some compilers, when invoke in certain ways, will reject the
program.

Yes, on most normal systems, if the compiler accepts it, it will work,
but there can be some systems with unusual ABIs that could have bad efects.