Here's how I
digest your
food for thought, Footprints.
- First point: No intention to deceive. Not a lie.
- Second point: Certanly satisfies the definition of intent to deceive (the deception being that you have correct knowledege of the value of pi), ergo a lie.
- Third point: Not a falsehood, you spoke the truth with intent to decieve. Does not satisfy the definition. Not a lie.
- Fourth point: At the time the statement was made the intention was not to deceive. Not a lie. A good point, however. Over time, though, pi could turn out to be 4.01. "Truth" may change over time but a person's intention when providing information does not change once that information has been provided.
Conclusion: Webbie's definition holds.
Your point appears to be that Webster's definition is inadequate. I am showing that it perhaps is not and using your examples.