1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

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

    From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Mar 2 17:17:28 2025
    On 02/03/2025 14:18, 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.

    No, they haven't. Copyright protects creative work, not word salad.

    I do this to establish academic
    credit for these underlying ideas.

    If you want to do that, write a paper and copyright /that/.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andy Walker@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Mar 2 20:40:55 2025
    On 02/03/2025 17:34, olcott wrote:
    On 3/2/2025 11:17 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 02/03/2025 14:18, olcott wrote:
    [...]
    For example the term "simulating halt decider" and
    "simulating termination analyzer" have been copyrighted
    by me for many years.
    No, they haven't. Copyright protects creative work, not word salad.
    I do this to establish academic
    credit for these underlying ideas.
    If you want to do that, write a paper and copyright /that/.
    I have done that dozens of times.
    I have published every increment of the progression
    of these ideas on this forum since 2004. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
    A Google search of "simulating halt decider" proves that
    I am the originator. My earliest ideas are all in comp.theory.

    Hmm. I have [several times in this group] previously referred
    readers to

    http://www.cuboid.me.uk/anw/G12FCO/lect18.html

    [start at the third paragraph], published in 1996, wherein is the proof
    that a simulating halt decider can no more exist than any other halt
    decider [though, to be fair, I called it an emulating HD rather than a simulating HD]. I don't claim any great credit for this; the ideas are ancient history. At best I can claim credit for writing them in a form suitable for a lecture given to non-CS students. There are a few i's and
    t's to be dotted and crossed, which are left as an exercise [there are
    severe limits to what can be explained to non-specialists in 50 mins or
    so]. So I suspect that any attempt to claim copyright on any similar idea
    is well and truly doomed, at least in Europe, unless done in a distinctive
    font which is part of the claim. But feel free to try. Note that I have copyright on that web page; but I am happy for anyone to quote bits of it
    for academic or non-commercial purposes.

    --
    Andy Walker, Nottingham.
    Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
    Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Dunhill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Mar 2 16:11:30 2025
    On 3/2/25 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/2/2025 11:17 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 02/03/2025 14:18, 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.

    No, they haven't. Copyright protects creative work, not word salad.

    I do this to establish academic
    credit for these underlying ideas.

    If you want to do that, write a paper and copyright /that/.


    I have done that dozens of times.
    I have published every increment of the progression
    of these ideas on this forum since 2004.

    https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D

    A Google search of "simulating halt decider" proves that
    I am the originator. My earliest ideas are all in comp.theory.


    Nope, the idea that you can use simulation to detect some forms of
    infinite behavior is ancient, I studied it in the 70's. Look up the
    method of detecting infinite loops by using two emulators, one running
    at twice the instruction rate of the other. This has been know as a way
    to detect that a given machine has reached a repeated state.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Mar 2 19:42:21 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Mar 2 22:46:36 2025
    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.


    typedef void (*ptr)();
    int HHH(ptr P);

    int DD()
    {
      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
      if (Halt_Status)
        HERE: goto HERE;
      return Halt_Status;
    }

    int main()
    {
      HHH(DD);
    }




    Which fails to meet the definition of a program, proving you are just
    too stupid to understand what you are talking about.

    You are also too stupid to undetstand your stupidity,

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred. Zwarts@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 3 09:59:07 2025
    Op 03.mrt.2025 om 03:59 schreef olcott:
    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"
    Ha ha ha. As if not being found by Google proves something.
    My great great great great great grandfather cannot be found by Google,
    so he never existed. Ha ha ha. My first ancestor that is found by Google
    must have been a special creation. Ha ha ha.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Mar 3 07:26:29 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Mar 3 14:51:01 2025
    On 2025-03-02 14:18:35 +0000, olcott said:

    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.

    Academic credit is not connected to copyrights. Submission and
    publication dates have some significance. Most important are
    references by others.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to richard@damon-family.org on Mon Mar 3 17:07:01 2025
    On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 07:26:29 -0500, Richard Damon
    <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:

    Sorry, you are just a dying stupid idiotic pathological liar.

    That's a bit strong, mate, try showing some respect or at least an
    iota of decency.

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Mon Mar 3 19:51:13 2025
    On 3/3/25 12:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 07:26:29 -0500, Richard Damon
    <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:

    Sorry, you are just a dying stupid idiotic pathological liar.

    That's a bit strong, mate, try showing some respect or at least an
    iota of decency.

    /Flibble

    When he shows that he deserives it, I will.

    Note, He started it, and just didn't know who he was fighting. It seems
    in this battle of wits, he came in un-armed;

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Mar 3 19:51:14 2025
    On 3/3/25 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/3/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 03.mrt.2025 om 03:59 schreef olcott:
    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"
    Ha ha ha. As if not being found by Google proves something.

    It utterly refutes anyone else that claims to have created
    this idea at a latter date that the dates of my words found
    on the pages and pages of link. Computer Science professor
    Eric Hehner came up with seed of this idea many years ago.

    But since there are published works on the topic that far predate your comments, you didn't create the idea.

    Maybe you can claim your fallicy, but it is really just variations of
    standard well know fallicies.


    My great great great great great grandfather cannot be found by
    Google, so he never existed. Ha ha ha. My first ancestor that is found
    by Google must have been a special creation. Ha ha ha.

    My Great Granfather's oldest brother Henry Steele Olcott
    was the most famous American Buddhist that is still celebrated
    In Sri Lanka today traced Olcott heritage all the way back
    to one of the founders of Harford Connecticut.


    And it seems you have disgraced his name. Sorry, but maybe Henry will
    give you a whack on the head when he meet you in the lake for what you
    did to him.

    https://www.amazon.com/Descendants-Thomas-Olcott-Settlers-Connecticut/ dp/9354415369


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Mar 4 12:29:58 2025
    On 2025-03-03 19:40:53 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/3/2025 6:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-02 14:18:35 +0000, olcott said:

    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.

    Academic credit is not connected to copyrights. Submission and
    publication dates have some significance. Most important are
    references by others.

    The copyright notice indicates that one is not
    merely referring to the work of others.

    No, it does not. I have seen copyright notices and references to work of
    others in the same opus.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)