Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Far less than no rebuttal at all
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 19:50:56 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c9fba8528a9b0ce9dd081419ac830e153551405c@i2pn2.org>
References: <vptlfu$3st19$9@dont-email.me> <vpug3h$50td$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq06al$eljf$1@dont-email.me> <vq06ja$dfve$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq075c$eljf$3@dont-email.me> <vq08gi$f06n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq0b4u$f3k3$4@dont-email.me> <vq0crn$fhth$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq0dl2$f3k3$10@dont-email.me> <3hg7sjhnq962dnkue9cg8ftccfbsf7rpfd@4ax.com>
 <fbc1c3d5507d1d175bdadbbfde51c10bdda1b437@i2pn2.org>
 <vq19ae$nkcf$1@dont-email.me> <vq1pbq$q7t4$1@dont-email.me>
 <31a0412e2970684ae378d18a273cc8e0edf4824a@i2pn2.org>
 <vq35tr$11qv8$2@dont-email.me>
 <23aa0cb632251e2f996771c596259861d785c8ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vq3bja$16jdc$3@dont-email.me>
 <de6fdbb0cfed3c13c4b161d81f0cd3ec4b598b27@i2pn2.org>
 <vq4p0v$1di94$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 00:50:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2727696"; 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: <vq4p0v$1di94$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/3/25 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2025 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/2/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2025 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/25 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2025 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/25 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2025 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-02 07:45:26 +0000, joes said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 02 Mar 2025 02:28:14 +0000 schrieb Mr Flibble:
>>>>>>>>>> Stop stealing my idea: it is Copyright 2022 Mr Flibble.
>>>>>>>>> May I note that useless or wrong ideas are not patentable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No patent was claimed, only copyright. But copyright does not 
>>>>>>>> protect ideas,
>>>>>>>> only particular presentations of those ideas, to some extent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example the term "simulating halt decider" and
>>>>>>> "simulating termination analyzer" have been copyrighted
>>>>>>> by me for many years. I do this to establish academic
>>>>>>> credit for these underlying ideas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't be, You can't "Copyright" words, only creative works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your papers on the topic can be, but not the terms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Terms can be protected under "Trademark", but that has a cost to 
>>>>>> register, and also you have to show a comercial purpose, and can't 
>>>>>> be just an ordinary term of art that describes your thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if you paid a lawyer to actually copyright the terms, you 
>>>>>> wasted money and got had. Just like if some lawyer suggested that 
>>>>>> you could get a copyright on such a term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That every reference to the term "simulating halt decider"
>>>>> in a Google search pulls up pages and pages of me establishes
>>>>> that I am the creator of the notion of a "simulating halt decider"
>>>>
>>>> Nope, just that you don;t understand what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>> That it is in the literature from over half a century ago just 
>>>> proves you didn't create the idea.
>>>>
>>>> You may have created that exact name, but not the concept.
>>>>
>>>> Note, you didn't say anything about how you are LYING about having a 
>>>> "Copyright" on that name/concept, maybe because you realize you 
>>>> don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> that correctly determines that DD correctly emulated by HHH
>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction and
>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>
>>>> Excpet that is a lying strawman, proving you are just a stupid fraud.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you are simply a troll that has never understood
>>> any of these technical details. I can't remember any
>>> technical analysis that you ever did that was technically
>>> correct.
>>>
>>
>> Really? What of my analysis is actually incorrect?
>>
> 
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> The above code proves that:
> (a) HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DD.

Nope, it aborts its emulation, and thus is NOT a correct emulationn

> 
> (b) DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.

Since (a) wasn't true, this is just an irrelvent fairy tale.

> 
> (c) The behavior of the input to HHH(DD) is different
> than the behavior of the directly executed DD because
> DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation and the directly
> executed DD does not call HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
> 
> That you don't understand tha this code proves this
> is far less than no rebuttal at all.
> 
> 
> 

And where is that difference? You have implicitly admited this is a lie, 
because you can't show the first instruction actually emulated where the 
difference occurs.

Your problem is your claim is based on unsupporeted (and unsupportable) 
lies and make-beleive.

All you are doing is proving you are just a pathological lying idiot 
that doesn't care about the truth.