Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Richard given an official cease-and-desist order regarding
 counter-factual libelous statements
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:43:12 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <290463282dbd661ed6e08c436745832ee4e02974@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <ve56ko$2i956$1@dont-email.me>
 <ve5nr2$2khlq$1@dont-email.me>
 <212f549294ebc77a918569aea93bea2a4a20286a@i2pn2.org>
 <ve6j1u$2og2c$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9d1bf5073fbffaa8d19bc76ca53020d263e7e16@i2pn2.org>
 <vea0iq$3cg0k$1@dont-email.me> <veas8b$3k751$1@dont-email.me>
 <veb6d6$3lbkf$4@dont-email.me>
 <abdfd1ca7abecda8618d1f029c3ea9823fa3b077@i2pn2.org>
 <vebgka$3n9aq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9ba1b363605f6eafab3c7084de8052b5732c2ecb@i2pn2.org>
 <vebncp$3nqde$2@dont-email.me>
 <35d61c22e9b7c379f8b8c24a7ea03edb6cb5dff8@i2pn2.org>
 <vec45r$3pqr6$2@dont-email.me>
 <ae05d9ecf74719e986062279b104234dba57116d@i2pn2.org>
 <vec685$3qavn$2@dont-email.me>
 <f76b8956cc65a3ee09b414a54779e14c061c7cab@i2pn2.org>
 <vec7m4$3qme3$1@dont-email.me>
 <866b3eb92d549c57a3ccfdb705b323dbae3cb8e8@i2pn2.org>
 <vec955$3qme3$2@dont-email.me> <vedc19$3k25$1@dont-email.me>
 <vedh6d$4891$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:43:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1713367"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vedh6d$4891$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4446
Lines: 66

On 10/12/24 5:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/12/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-11 22:34:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2024 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> O
>>
>>>> No, it shows that HHH can not correctly emulate DDD and return an 
>>>> answer.
>>>
>>> That you can't even pay attention to the fact that we are
>>> only talking about the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH and
>>> not talking about whether or not HHH returns a value would
>>> seem to be a good incompetence defense to defamation.
>>
>> You are not paying attention to the fact that DDD returns if and only
>> if HHH(DDD) returns, so the qestions whether HHH returns and wehther
>> DDD returns are essentially the same.
>>
> 
> My key advantage is that I pay much more attention than anyone
> else here does.

No your key ERROR is that you ignore what other people say, especially 
when they point to the DEFINITIONS of the system you are talking about, 
and just hold fast to your FALSE preconceptions that you developed in 
your ZEROTH PRINCIPLE look at the system (that is a zero knowledge analysis)

> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
> then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.

A statement, which is just an equivocation, that is false both ways, as 
proven, and your repeating it just proving you are not listening, but 
just repeating your Lies.

The DDD, that HHH emulates, which is the proper target of talking if it 
returns or not, does return, only after the emulation of it by HHH was 
aborted.

You seem to want to talk about the behavior of the partial emulation of 
DDD by HHH, but that isn't the sort of thing that has the property of 
"Termination" that you use next. At best it shows that DDD hasn't 
terminated by this point, i.e., not yet, not the never that 
non-termination means.

Your repeated use of this equivocation, and refusal to clarify just 
shows that your nature is to lie about what you are talking about, just 
like you taught Chat GPT to do (not that AI needs to be taught to lie, 
as it will naturally do that, but you reinforced that such behavior was 
ok).

> 
> Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
> 0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.
> 

Except it doesn't as non-termination is a property of a progran (the 
first case described above) and that did terminate.

Thus, your claim is just a lie based on an attempted equivocation.