Re: Copyright for "simulating halt decider" by Olcott for many years

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?
Where is your answer to any of my corrections?
Your answer is always that you "know better", when you can't source your basis, and say that everyone else is just stupid.
I let you in on something, the only people whop think everyone else is stupid, it the total idiot that can't see there own stupidity.
You have in so many words admitted that you are just a liar in your discussion of these problems, going so far as to say that the logic in them is just invalid as logic doesn't work.
You are just stuck in a world of your imagination that needs "Truth Fairies" to make imaginary statement seem to be true.
Sorry, you are just a dying stupid idiotic pathological liar.