Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<536e19c0cda0ed559531eeff166340e7348c20e6@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 23:14:06 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <536e19c0cda0ed559531eeff166340e7348c20e6@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 03:14:06 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1641971"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <vec955$3qme3$2@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 13343 Lines: 265 On 10/11/24 6:34 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/11/2024 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/11/24 6:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/11/2024 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/11/24 5:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/11/2024 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/11/24 5:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/11/2024 3:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> 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* ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========