Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Richard given an official cease-and-desist order regarding counter-factual libelous statements Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:29:11 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <8fff8d1080e14393c058d7d23d219ecd55b29d22@i2pn2.org> References: <212f549294ebc77a918569aea93bea2a4a20286a@i2pn2.org> <9ba1b363605f6eafab3c7084de8052b5732c2ecb@i2pn2.org> <35d61c22e9b7c379f8b8c24a7ea03edb6cb5dff8@i2pn2.org> <866b3eb92d549c57a3ccfdb705b323dbae3cb8e8@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 19:29:11 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1680996"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 5942 Lines: 76 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 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. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.