Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO
 Incorporation by reference
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 20:05:34 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2581cab5c20a1934985c8559734d91edb6497a55@i2pn2.org>
References: <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me> <vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me> <vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp8att$1cec$1@news.muc.de> <vp8h5n$32ifn$1@dont-email.me>
 <u5rgrj9vgnekhbb91aco33j3qtm3cso1m3@4ax.com>
 <9b5242d669f629dca744930d863763fce9927bf3@i2pn2.org>
 <vpb143$3jct4$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 01:05:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1177159"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vpb143$3jct4$10@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5785
Lines: 111

On 2/21/25 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/21/2025 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/21/25 7:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have given everyone here all of the complete source code for a 
>>>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>
>>>>>>> True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that 
>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Every post that I have been talking about for two or
>>>>>> more years has referred to variations of that same code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting 
>>>>> something new
>>>>> and fresh.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly dodge
>>>> my key points I will be done.
>>>>
>>>> Let's start with a root point.
>>>> All of the other points validate this root point.
>>>>
>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines*
>>>> *the non-halt status of DD*
>>>>
>>>> *According to the UTPTO patent law practice I am incorporating*
>>>> *the following paper and source-code by reference*
>>>> https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s217.html
>>>>
>>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 918-1156  // All of the lines of termination analyzer HHH
>>>> 1355-1370 // DD() through main()
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; 
>>>>>> Genius
>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>
>>>
>>> If you attempt to patent your so called halt decider then I will
>>> challenge it as you are stealing my idea of returning a third result
>>> of pathological input.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> He isn't claiming to be able to patent, just use the concept of 
>> incorpoate by reference (which isn't unique to patent law).
>>
>> The problem with incorporate by reference, is you need to do it at the 
>> begining of each separate work, and you are stuck with that reference.
>>
>> If HHH is defined by the reference, then it can not be changed, and 
>> thus there is no "unless HHH aborts", since it always does.
>>
> 
> Now no one has any excuse to say that that have no idea
> of which code that I am referring to.
> 

Of course we do, as you can't actually explain it.

Is Halt7.c part of the logic system?

If so, then you have as an established fact that HHH *WILL* abort its 
simulation of DD, and thus DD will be a halting program. This means any 
statement asking about what happens if HHH doesn't act that way is 
asking about what happens in a LIE. Any results conditioned on it is 
unsound and invalid.

If not, then DD isn't a program, and thus your whole arguement is built 
on a fabrication.

You continue to not answer question about the basis of your claims, 
because you know your basis is just lies and foolishness.

You can define HHH, then then change it, except by LYING and proving 
that you just don't understand what you are talking about.

And then we have the fact, that your code you presents shows that you 
have always been lying about HHH, as it isn't the REQUIRED computation / 
pure function, as it DOES look at things that are clearly not part of 
its "input".

And then you run into the problem that even if you fixed that, by trying 
to claim that only the "C" Function for DD is the input, that isn't a 
program as it depends on something outside of itself that isn't an input 
(the function HHH) and HHH evalutes something that wasn't part of its 
input when it traces the code after the call HHH in DD.

Sorry, you are just proving that your world is based on LIES and FRAUD 
and that you have no idea how logic is supposed to work.