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.