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 17:55:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f76b8956cc65a3ee09b414a54779e14c061c7cab@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 21:55:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1611714"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vec685$3qavn$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 11877
Lines: 253

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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========