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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Richard given an official cease-and-desist order regarding counter-factual libelous statements
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 11:10:03 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <vefv8r$jvl1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$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$4@dont-email.me> <7f197a83536ad27b934e677aad25d7f303c2813c@i2pn2.org> <veeucv$bf9q$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:10:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b99f9ae25acd9c34e0b790893686dcea";
	logging-data="655009"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19c6Ir8fqewd7un4DwsQ2WP"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:e5+iycEys4+1T+vb7Z7uFmqTzog=
Bytes: 7037

On 2024-10-12 22:49:03 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/12/2024 5:08 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:44:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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.
>> If it's not, all the rest doesn't matter for the halting problem.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> Yes, it depends on HHH. HHH cannot simulate DDD to its termination.
>> 
> 
> That is the same as saying that people are limited
> in their ability to calculate the diameter of a square.

People who can only use rational numbers are. People who can use
irrational numbers are not.

-- 
Mikko