Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Richard given an official cease-and-desist order regarding counter-factual libelous statements Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 17:31:34 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <212f549294ebc77a918569aea93bea2a4a20286a@i2pn2.org> <9ba1b363605f6eafab3c7084de8052b5732c2ecb@i2pn2.org> <35d61c22e9b7c379f8b8c24a7ea03edb6cb5dff8@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 21:31:35 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1610512"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 9845 Lines: 204 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... after a short break. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which are you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone who is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter? You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surely noticed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Peter is running rings around you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Peter -- you surely have better things to do.  No- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one sensible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is reading the repetitive stuff.  Decades, and myriads of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles, ago >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people here tried to help you knock your points into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shape, but anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensible is swamped by the insults.  Free advice, worth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roughly what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are paying for it:  step back, and summarise [from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scratch, not using HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think you are trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No more than one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side of paper.  Assume that people who don't actively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insult you are, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, trying to help. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this approach has been tried many times. It makes no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more progress than the ones you are criticizing. Just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume the regulars are lonesome, very lonesome and USENET >>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps everybody off the deserted streets at night. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that takes the >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine >>>>>>>>>>>>> address of DDD as input then emulates the x86 machine language >>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD until a non-terminating behavior pattern is recognized. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But fails, because you provided it with a proven incorrect >>>>>>>>>>>> pattern >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH recognizes this pattern when HHH emulates itself >>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't a correct analysis (but of course, that is just >>>>>>>>>>>> what you do) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since we know that HHH(DDD) returns 0, it can not be a non- >>>>>>>>>>>> terminating behaivor, but that claim is just a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string x86 machine language of DDD such that >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Right, one can not ignore the fact that HHH(DDD) is >>>>>>>>>>>> determined to return 0. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>> exist never returns >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> More lies. It has been determined that EVERY DDD that calls >>>>>>>>>>>> an HHH(DDD) that returns 0 will halt. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The DDDs that don't return are the ones that call an HHH >>>>>>>>>>>> that never returns an answer. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Your weasel words are in incorrect paraphrase of this* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> WHAT PARAPHARSE. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly >>>>>>>>>>> exist never returns >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, that means the behavior of the code of DDD when directly >>>>>>>>>> executed. or youy are lying about working on the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that you just said that: >>>>>>>>> the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At least one could say so because the exptession "the behaviour >>>>>>>> of DDD >>>>>>>> emulated by HHH" can be interpreted in two ways. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It can be interpreted an infinite number of ways when the >>>>>>> requirement >>>>>>> that the interpretation be correct is dropped. >>>>>> >>>>>> And, the only CORRECT interpretation goes by the DEFINITIONS of >>>>>> the words, which means that "non-termination" is a property of a >>>>>> complete program (which your "finite-string" for DDD does not >>>>>> express) and that said program never reaches a terminal state even >>>>>> after an unbounded number of steps, which this HHH's emulation >>>>>> doesn't do. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, you are just proving yourself to be a blatant liar. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========