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

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.
His problem is logic doesn't accept that reality exists and things do what they do, but he presumes that the non-happening can be assumed to happen, and the false to be true.