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: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:12:29 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5ceae738d448e35399f0ca6dbc40ed0785948987@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vote0u$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 01:12:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1020929"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vp8h5n$32ifn$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3780
Lines: 75

On 2/20/25 7:25 PM, olcott 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.

We aren't doing a "dodge", but pointing out the fundamental error in 
your statement.

> 
> 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*

Nope, since DD halts.

> 
> *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

And thus you admit that there is only one HHH in existance, and that 
incorrectly simulated its input of DD, since it aborts it,

> 
> 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

Which just repeats your error

> 
> 918-1156  // All of the lines of termination analyzer HHH
> 1355-1370 // DD() through main()
> 
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

Which thuys say that HHH is, on only is that code, that WILL abort its 
emulaiton of DD, and thus the phrase "unless HHH aborts" is a lie, since 
HHH can only abort, and thus an HHH that doesn't abort can not be in 
view except by lying.

Sorry, your logic is inconsistent with the definition of Computation THeory.

Your refusal to see that just proves your stupidity.

> 
> 
>>> -- 
>>> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
> 
>