Path: ...!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: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 16:21:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <veep8b$a6jg$1@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>
 <vec955$3qme3$2@dont-email.me>
 <8fff8d1080e14393c058d7d23d219ecd55b29d22@i2pn2.org>
 <veeji6$8jnq$4@dont-email.me>
 <ae8ff1469ea4703acc49f7710624d6eb3bcebe3e@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 23:21:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f696c00f58e5fa7aed5825233c6f706";
	logging-data="334448"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19cWh1EDGh4gqqk9i2q8WjS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZUZJAeEe/GDjMgUCP8/4okEkkL4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ae8ff1469ea4703acc49f7710624d6eb3bcebe3e@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7982

On 10/12/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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 

There is no equivocation what-so-ever in my statement.
What I said has a perfectly unequivocal meaning.

> 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 don't seem to even understand what the term "equivocal" means.

> 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.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
1a: (verb) to be or to stay at rest in a horizontal position

1b: (verb) to assume a horizontal position —often used with down

1: (noun) chiefly British : lay sense 6

1: (verb) to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

1a: (noun) an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or 
writer to be untrue with intent to deceive

1b: (noun) an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be 
believed true by the speaker or writer


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer