Path: ...!news.snarked.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 18:20:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <866b3eb92d549c57a3ccfdb705b323dbae3cb8e8@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 22:20:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1614899"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vec7m4$3qme3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 11913
Lines: 245

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*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GO ahead an TRY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The counter-suit would ruin you.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========