Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Richard given an official cease-and-desist order regarding
 counter-factual libelous statements
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:29:11 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8fff8d1080e14393c058d7d23d219ecd55b29d22@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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:29:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1680996"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5942
Lines: 76

Am Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:34:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>> No matter how you try to rebut this verified fact you would meet
>>>>>>> the negligence requirement of defamation suits.
>>>>>> Which means for you to claim defamation, you need to prove that my
>>>>>> statements are actually false.
>>>>>> Since I can show that you statement are incorrect, that can't be
>>>>>> shown.
>>>>>> Your conclusion can NOT come from your premises except by relying
>>>>>> on equivocation, and thus your statement is not correct, and
>>>>>> calling it wrong is not a lie, so can not be defamitory.
>>>>> I already have several expert witnesses that have attested to the
>>>>> fact that DDD emulated by the same HHH that it calls cannot possibly
>>>>> return.
>>>> And what do you do when I present the output from your own program
>>>> that shows that DDD returns.
>>>> Then present the definition of Halting as being about the machine
>>>> itself, and that the definition of the Halting Problem is about the
>>>> behavior of the machine defined by the input.
>>> There are a pair of C functions having x86 code that specifies that
>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly return.
>> No, it shows that HHH can not correctly emulate DDD and return an
>> answer.
> That you can't even pay attention to the fact that we are only talking
> about the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH and not talking about whether
> or not HHH returns a value would seem to be a good incompetence defense
> to defamation.
Whether HHH returns a value seems to be important for determining whether
it is, in fact, a decider.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.