Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Far less than no rebuttal at all
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:08:26 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <vq6fua$1ptg9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vptlfu$3st19$9@dont-email.me> <vpug3h$50td$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq06al$eljf$1@dont-email.me> <vq06ja$dfve$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq075c$eljf$3@dont-email.me> <vq08gi$f06n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq0b4u$f3k3$4@dont-email.me> <vq0crn$fhth$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq0dl2$f3k3$10@dont-email.me> <3hg7sjhnq962dnkue9cg8ftccfbsf7rpfd@4ax.com>
 <fbc1c3d5507d1d175bdadbbfde51c10bdda1b437@i2pn2.org>
 <vq19ae$nkcf$1@dont-email.me> <vq1pbq$q7t4$1@dont-email.me>
 <31a0412e2970684ae378d18a273cc8e0edf4824a@i2pn2.org>
 <vq35tr$11qv8$2@dont-email.me>
 <23aa0cb632251e2f996771c596259861d785c8ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vq3bja$16jdc$3@dont-email.me>
 <de6fdbb0cfed3c13c4b161d81f0cd3ec4b598b27@i2pn2.org>
 <vq4p0v$1di94$1@dont-email.me> <vq516u$1er5l$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq5c0a$1gu61$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 10:08:27 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0d7c6140e742b44fca545d1093be5c1e";
	logging-data="1897993"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196Yot9cUFTMQhoKwhttA5s"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:K+FzyqGzncgOITLgOjAG3cuKaWc=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vq5c0a$1gu61$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5161

Op 03.mrt.2025 om 23:55 schreef olcott:
> On 3/3/2025 1:50 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 03.mrt.2025 om 18:31 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/3/2025 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2025 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/25 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2025 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/25 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2025 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-02 07:45:26 +0000, joes said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 02 Mar 2025 02:28:14 +0000 schrieb Mr Flibble:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop stealing my idea: it is Copyright 2022 Mr Flibble.
>>>>>>>>>>> May I note that useless or wrong ideas are not patentable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No patent was claimed, only copyright. But copyright does not 
>>>>>>>>>> protect ideas,
>>>>>>>>>> only particular presentations of those ideas, to some extent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example the term "simulating halt decider" and
>>>>>>>>> "simulating termination analyzer" have been copyrighted
>>>>>>>>> by me for many years. I do this to establish academic
>>>>>>>>> credit for these underlying ideas.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can't be, You can't "Copyright" words, only creative works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your papers on the topic can be, but not the terms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Terms can be protected under "Trademark", but that has a cost to 
>>>>>>>> register, and also you have to show a comercial purpose, and 
>>>>>>>> can't be just an ordinary term of art that describes your thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, if you paid a lawyer to actually copyright the terms, you 
>>>>>>>> wasted money and got had. Just like if some lawyer suggested 
>>>>>>>> that you could get a copyright on such a term.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That every reference to the term "simulating halt decider"
>>>>>>> in a Google search pulls up pages and pages of me establishes
>>>>>>> that I am the creator of the notion of a "simulating halt decider"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, just that you don;t understand what you are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That it is in the literature from over half a century ago just 
>>>>>> proves you didn't create the idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may have created that exact name, but not the concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, you didn't say anything about how you are LYING about having 
>>>>>> a "Copyright" on that name/concept, maybe because you realize you 
>>>>>> don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that correctly determines that DD correctly emulated by HHH
>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction and
>>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excpet that is a lying strawman, proving you are just a stupid fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you are simply a troll that has never understood
>>>>> any of these technical details. I can't remember any
>>>>> technical analysis that you ever did that was technically
>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? What of my analysis is actually incorrect?
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>> The above code proves that:
>>> (a) HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DD.
>>
>> No, HHH aborts, so a correct simulation of itself would see that abort.
>>
> 
> Counter-factual and beyond your technical competence.
> 

No facts presented. No rebuttal. No logic competence.