Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Richard given an official cease-and-desist order regarding
 counter-factual libelous statements
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:34:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 236
Message-ID: <vec955$3qme3$2@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 00:34:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f696c00f58e5fa7aed5825233c6f706";
	logging-data="4020675"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YpGjvia0clC9GWxkilSsO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2xdMyEeytp+5f/ekgsf4Jy5z8Mk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <866b3eb92d549c57a3ccfdb705b323dbae3cb8e8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 11890

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