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

On 10/13/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-12 09:57:32 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 10/12/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-11 22:34:13 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/11/2024 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

O

>

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.

>
You are not paying attention to the fact that DDD returns if and only
if HHH(DDD) returns, so the qestions whether HHH returns and wehther
DDD returns are essentially the same.

>
My key advantage is that I pay much more attention than anyone
else here does.

 Perahps to something but not to the fact that DDD returns if and only if HHH(DDD) returns, so the questions whether HHH returns and whether DDD
returns are essentially the same.
 

I am not and never have been claiming anything about incorrect
paraphrases of these exact words:
*HHH rejects DDD as non terminating*
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.
Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above non-terminating behavior of its input.
*Fully operational code is here*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer