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

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:

... after a short break.
>
     Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter? You
must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
that Peter is running rings around you.
>
     Peter -- you surely have better things to do.  No- one sensible
is reading the repetitive stuff.  Decades, and myriads of articles, ago
people here tried to help you knock your points into shape, but anything
sensible is swamped by the insults.  Free advice, worth roughly what you
are paying for it:  step back, and summarise [from scratch, not using HHH
and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you think you are trying
to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made.  No more than one
side of paper.  Assume that people who don't actively insult you are, in
fact, trying to help.

>
And this approach has been tried many times. It makes no more progress than the ones you are criticizing. Just assume the regulars are lonesome, very lonesome and USENET keeps everybody off the deserted streets at night.

>
HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that takes the machine
address of DDD as input then emulates the x86 machine language
of DDD until a non-terminating behavior pattern is recognized.

>
But fails, because you provided it with a proven incorrect pattern
>

>
HHH recognizes this pattern when HHH emulates itself emulating DDD
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>

>
Which isn't a correct analysis (but of course, that is just what you do)
>
Since we know that HHH(DDD) returns 0, it can not be a non- terminating behaivor, but that claim is just a lie.
>

One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the
finite string x86 machine language of DDD such that
>

>
Right, one can not ignore the fact that HHH(DDD) is determined to return 0.
>

DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns

>
More lies. It has been determined that EVERY DDD that calls an HHH(DDD) that returns 0 will halt.
>
The DDDs that don't return are the ones that call an HHH that never returns an answer.
>

>
*Your weasel words are in incorrect paraphrase of this*

>
WHAT PARAPHARSE.
>

>
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns

>
No, that means the behavior of the code of DDD when directly executed. or youy are lying about working on the Halting Problem.
>

>
It seems to me that you just said that:
the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
<is not>
the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH.

>
At least one could say so because the exptession "the behaviour of DDD
emulated by HHH" can be interpreted in two ways.

>
It can be interpreted an infinite number of ways when the requirement
that the interpretation be correct is dropped.

>
And, the only CORRECT interpretation goes by the DEFINITIONS of the words, which means that "non-termination" is a property of a complete program (which your "finite-string" for DDD does not express) and that said program never reaches a terminal state even after an unbounded number of steps, which this HHH's emulation doesn't do.
>
So, you are just proving yourself to be a blatant liar.
>

>
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.

Nope, because even in software engineering, the term "Correct Emulation" refers to the recreation of the actual behavior of the program describe.

 No matter how you try to rebut this verified fact you would meet
the negligence requirement of defamation suits.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
 

Which means it is YOU that needs to prove that my statment is incorrect,
and you need to prove damage to reputation cause by my words, when you don't HAVE a reputation to be damaged based on your own words.

When I specify the standard of measure and you use the strawman
error to try to get way with changing the standard of measure
this <is> negligence.

No, trying to specify the standard of measure for something that already has a standard of measure is just a strawman arguement.
That shows that YOU are the one comming the error.
Are you willing to say under oath that you have the right to change the definition of something already defined to be something different?
Do you think any competent judge or jury would beleive you?

 

In fact, you source code proves that you claims about it are just lies, as it is not the pure function you claim it to be.
>
>