Re: Far less than no rebuttal at all

Op 03.mrt.2025 om 18:31 schreef olcott:

On 3/3/2025 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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?
>

 https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
The above code proves that:
(a) HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DD.

No, HHH aborts, so a correct simulation of itself would see that abort.

 (b) DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.

Yes, that is the failure of HHH. It cannot reach the 'ret' that the direct execution and other simulators can reach. Not being able to reach the 'ret' is a property of HHH, not of DD.

 (c) The behavior of the input to HHH(DD) is different
than the behavior of the directly executed DD because
DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation and the directly
executed DD does not call HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.

DD does not call HHH in recursive emulation, it is HHH that recursively emulates DD. DD can be eliminated easily:
        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }
Which proves that it HHH that is simulating itself recursively.