Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 07:05:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <vegd2v$lk27$5@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$2@dont-email.me> <vefv8r$jvl1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 14:05:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4dff4ea9256eef2f131620d81ba94869";
	logging-data="708679"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HztfzG45xsdttah1NDxid"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fhF0rZWG7COvdN+cHNwOPfchiqs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vefv8r$jvl1$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7734

On 10/13/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Squares do not have diameters making it impossible
for anyone or anything to calculate the diameter or
a square.

DDD emulated by any HHH does not reach its own
return instruction because all the DDD/HHH pairs
specify this.

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