Re: Analysis of Richard Damon’s Responses to Flibble

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:

Analysis of Richard Damon’s Responses to Flibble
================================================
Overview:
---------
Richard Damon's critiques of Flibble's arguments regarding the Halting
Problem and pathological inputs are based on a classical Turing model.

Richard's criticism of your ideas are grounded in a thorough
understanding of the mathematics involved.

However, his rebuttals fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent the
core of Flibble’s alternative framework.

The first bit of arrogant nonsense.  Your understanding of the subject
is not at a high level, and thus you are in no position to propose
"alternative frameworks", failing as you do to grasp the basics of the
theory.

Below is a breakdown of the key errors in Damon’s reasoning.

Asserting that Richard has made errors verges on libel, if it isn't
actually fully libel.  Unlike you, Richard is an expert on the topic,
and what he has said here over the years about the maths has not been
criticised by anybody competent.

You could do well with showing a bit of respect for expertise.  Your
lack of it puts you on the same level as Peter Olcott.

Your arrogance will in all likelihood prevent you from actually learning
about computation theory and the like.  That's a shame.  It's a
fascinating area of study.

[ Snipped the rest, as there's nothing worthy of reply in the rest of
the post. ]

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).