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: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 06:44:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <vegbra$lk27$2@dont-email.me>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$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>
 <c433d74292dffaaa59a840e12be03afc8c6ff8c1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 13:44:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4dff4ea9256eef2f131620d81ba94869";
	logging-data="708679"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18o+xypOeWhiICcIJKGlh7h"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OQH1JE2CJY+KV7DVQX5QAljkzkI=
In-Reply-To: <c433d74292dffaaa59a840e12be03afc8c6ff8c1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7618

On 10/13/2024 4:02 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 17:49:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 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.
> DDD terminates.
> 

https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
When you click on the link and try to explain how HHH must
be wrong when it reports that DDD does not terminate because
DDD does terminate it will explain your mistake to you.

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