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: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Far less than no rebuttal at all Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 19:50:56 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <3hg7sjhnq962dnkue9cg8ftccfbsf7rpfd@4ax.com> <31a0412e2970684ae378d18a273cc8e0edf4824a@i2pn2.org> <23aa0cb632251e2f996771c596259861d785c8ef@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 00:50:57 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2727696"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US On 3/3/25 12:31 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. Nope, it aborts its emulation, and thus is NOT a correct emulationn > > (b) DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly > reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally. Since (a) wasn't true, this is just an irrelvent fairy tale. > > (c) The behavior of the input to HHH(DD) is different > than the behavior of the directly executed DD because > DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation and the directly > executed DD does not call HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. > > That you don't understand tha this code proves this > is far less than no rebuttal at all. > > > And where is that difference? You have implicitly admited this is a lie, because you can't show the first instruction actually emulated where the difference occurs. Your problem is your claim is based on unsupporeted (and unsupportable) lies and make-beleive. All you are doing is proving you are just a pathological lying idiot that doesn't care about the truth.