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 17:46:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8a3d05ccc4712ac7157a1b65f4d599cb9f658d6f@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 21:46:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1611714"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vec45r$3pqr6$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9752
Lines: 202

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.
>>
>> 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
>>
> 
> Within software engineering (C and x86 code, not Turing machines)
> HHH does correctly emulate itself emulating DDD according to the
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========