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: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 16:25:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ae8ff1469ea4703acc49f7710624d6eb3bcebe3e@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>
 <8fff8d1080e14393c058d7d23d219ecd55b29d22@i2pn2.org>
 <veeji6$8jnq$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:25:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1750235"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <veeji6$8jnq$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6815
Lines: 92

On 10/12/24 3:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/12/2024 2:29 PM, joes wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> I have not even gotten to that point yet.
> 
> My point HERE AND NOW is that DDD emulated by every
> HHH that can possibly exist cannot possibly reach
> its own return instruction NO MATTER WHAT HHH DOES.
> 


And you need to fix the equivocation in your statement, so you can see 
why your logic doesn't work so you can try to fix it to move on.

YOU are the one that wants to stick to the equivical statement, because 
lying by equivocation seems to be your only path forward.

You are just proving that you are actually working on the liars side, by 
trying to get people to accept logic that accepts lies as ok.