Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <536e19c0cda0ed559531eeff166340e7348c20e6@i2pn2.org>
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 ==========