Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO Incorporation by reference

On 2/21/25 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/21/2025 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/21/25 7:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said:

>
[ .... ]
>

I have given everyone here all of the complete source code for a few
years

>

True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that particular
code.

>
>

Every post that I have been talking about for two or
more years has referred to variations of that same code.

>
Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting something new
and fresh.
>

>
As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly dodge
my key points I will be done.
>
Let's start with a root point.
All of the other points validate this root point.
>
*Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines*
*the non-halt status of DD*
>
*According to the UTPTO patent law practice I am incorporating*
*the following paper and source-code by reference*
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s217.html
>
Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>
>
918-1156  // All of the lines of termination analyzer HHH
1355-1370 // DD() through main()
>
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
>

-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>

>
If you attempt to patent your so called halt decider then I will
challenge it as you are stealing my idea of returning a third result
of pathological input.
>
/Flibble

>
He isn't claiming to be able to patent, just use the concept of incorpoate by reference (which isn't unique to patent law).
>
The problem with incorporate by reference, is you need to do it at the begining of each separate work, and you are stuck with that reference.
>
If HHH is defined by the reference, then it can not be changed, and thus there is no "unless HHH aborts", since it always does.
>

 Now no one has any excuse to say that that have no idea
of which code that I am referring to.
 

Of course we do, as you can't actually explain it.
Is Halt7.c part of the logic system?
If so, then you have as an established fact that HHH *WILL* abort its simulation of DD, and thus DD will be a halting program. This means any statement asking about what happens if HHH doesn't act that way is asking about what happens in a LIE. Any results conditioned on it is unsound and invalid.
If not, then DD isn't a program, and thus your whole arguement is built on a fabrication.
You continue to not answer question about the basis of your claims, because you know your basis is just lies and foolishness.
You can define HHH, then then change it, except by LYING and proving that you just don't understand what you are talking about.
And then we have the fact, that your code you presents shows that you have always been lying about HHH, as it isn't the REQUIRED computation / pure function, as it DOES look at things that are clearly not part of its "input".
And then you run into the problem that even if you fixed that, by trying to claim that only the "C" Function for DD is the input, that isn't a program as it depends on something outside of itself that isn't an input (the function HHH) and HHH evalutes something that wasn't part of its input when it traces the code after the call HHH in DD.
Sorry, you are just proving that your world is based on LIES and FRAUD and that you have no idea how logic is supposed to work.