Re: Richard given an official cease-and-desist order regarding counter-factual libelous statements

On 2024-10-12 19:44:06 +0000, olcott said:

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.
 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.

That does not mean anything as long as you don't define "every HHH"
so that one can determine whether a HHH that emulates whatever is
given as input except that instead of emulating its own code (it
it is called) as "return 1;" only is included in "every HHH".
--
Mikko