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: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:21:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <35d61c22e9b7c379f8b8c24a7ea03edb6cb5dff8@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 20:21:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1603164"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vebncp$3nqde$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7930
Lines: 160

On 10/11/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/11/2024 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/11/24 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2024 8:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/24 8:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2024 4:47 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-10-11 01:55:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/9/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/9/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/24 7:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2024 1:08 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2024 6:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... after a short break.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter? You
>>>>>>>>>>>>> must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> surely noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Peter is running rings around you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Peter -- you surely have better things to do.  No-one 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is reading the repetitive stuff.  Decades, and myriads of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles, ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people here tried to help you knock your points into shape, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensible is swamped by the insults.  Free advice, worth 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> roughly what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are paying for it:  step back, and summarise [from scratch, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not using HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you think 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made.  No 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> side of paper.  Assume that people who don't actively 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insult you are, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, trying to help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And this approach has been tried many times. It makes no 
>>>>>>>>>>>> more progress than the ones you are criticizing. Just assume 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the regulars are lonesome, very lonesome and USENET keeps 
>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody off the deserted streets at night.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that takes the machine
>>>>>>>>>>> address of DDD as input then emulates the x86 machine language
>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD until a non-terminating behavior pattern is recognized.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But fails, because you provided it with a proven incorrect 
>>>>>>>>>> pattern
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH recognizes this pattern when HHH emulates itself 
>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't a correct analysis (but of course, that is just 
>>>>>>>>>> what you do)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since we know that HHH(DDD) returns 0, it can not be a non- 
>>>>>>>>>> terminating behaivor, but that claim is just a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>> finite string x86 machine language of DDD such that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, one can not ignore the fact that HHH(DDD) is determined 
>>>>>>>>>> to return 0.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> exist never returns
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More lies. It has been determined that EVERY DDD that calls an 
>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) that returns 0 will halt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The DDDs that don't return are the ones that call an HHH that 
>>>>>>>>>> never returns an answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Your weasel words are in incorrect paraphrase of this*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHAT PARAPHARSE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
>>>>>>>>> exist never returns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, that means the behavior of the code of DDD when directly 
>>>>>>>> executed. or youy are lying about working on the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to me that you just said that:
>>>>>>> the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>> <is not>
>>>>>>> the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least one could say so because the exptession "the behaviour of 
>>>>>> DDD
>>>>>> emulated by HHH" can be interpreted in two ways. 
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be interpreted an infinite number of ways when the requirement
>>>>> that the interpretation be correct is dropped.
>>>>
>>>> And, the only CORRECT interpretation goes by the DEFINITIONS of the 
>>>> words, which means that "non-termination" is a property of a 
>>>> complete program (which your "finite-string" for DDD does not 
>>>> express) and that said program never reaches a terminal state even 
>>>> after an unbounded number of steps, which this HHH's emulation 
>>>> doesn't do.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are just proving yourself to be a blatant liar.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The x86 machine code of DDD and HHH provides the single correct
>>>>> way to interpret DDD emulated by HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and that machine code needs to INCLUDE the machine code of HHH, 
>>>
>>> The source code has always proved that HHH does correctly
>>> emulate itself emulating DDD.
>>
>> No, it shows that HHH is first NOT a proper decider 
> 
> The source-code conclusively proves that HHH does correctly
> emulate itself emulating DDD. No matter how you deny this
> your denial of these exact details <is> libelous.
> 
> *This is to be taken as an official cease-and-desist order*
> 

GO ahead an TRY.

The counter-suit would ruin you.

And, you would need to persuade some lawyer to take your case to even 
start, and I suspect that would be difficult considering your case.

I suspect that in the first deposition you would just create obvious 
contradiction making you guilty of perjury.

Your source code proves that HHH doesn't "Correctly Simulate" per the 
standard needed to determine halting, as partial simulation are no

In fact, you source code proves that you claims about it are just lies, 
as it is not the pure function you claim it to be.