Re: Analysis of Richard Damon’s Responses to Flibble

On 5/18/25 3:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 18 May 2025 15:19:38 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 5/18/25 1:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

 

4. Stack Overflow as a Semantic Signal
--------------------------------------
Damon argues that stack overflow represents a failed computation:

"...it just got the wrong answer."

>
Flibble’s view is different:
- A stack overflow (or crash) isn’t failure.

>
Sure it is. A program that fails to complete and give the correct answer
has just failed to give an answer.
>
If you want to define "stack overflow" as an "I don't know" result,
fine, but first you have to define that this is a "valid" result.

 No it isn't. Why? Because the stack overflow a property of the simulation
environment (the fact that the SHD has finite resources) and NOT a
property of the program, P, being analysed per se.  P is NOT halting, it
is the SHD that is halting due to the detection of infinite recursion on
the part of P.  It is perfectly valid for the SHD to treat this as NON-
HALTING as far as P is concerned.
 /Flibble

No, it is a property of the decider. If your "environment" is inadiquite, it just shows you aren't using a proper environment.
Soemtimes, we will talk about a stack over-flow as not being a failure, but also not a success, just an indication that the environment is insufficent to run this case.
You are just showing you lack of understanding of the system you are talking about.