Re: Flibble's Law

On 4/18/25 5:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 17:13:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 4/18/25 5:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 15:08:55 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

On 4/18/25 3:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Flibble's Law:
>
If a problem permits infinite behavior in its formulation, it permits
infinite analysis of that behavior in its decidability scope.

>
>
Why?
>
Especially when the question is "Is the behavior of the process
infinite?"
>
The issue is that fundamentally, knowledge must be based on finite
processes, as we can't do infinite analysis and do anything with the
answer.
>
Knowing that a process will be infinite, allows us to not waste all of
our time on something that won't get us an answer.
>
The basic result of all this sort of proof, is that there are cases
where we can't ever know for certain if we are on a wild-goose-chase
that will never give a result, or we are on a path that WILL give a
result eventually if we persist long enough.
>
Knowing that there ARE Wild-Goose-Chases as fundamental properties of
systems lets us plan better for what to do.
>
We KNOW we can't be perfect in all we do, so we accept realistic
results, and try to keep improving.

>
It is about playing the game by the rules of the game:

>
Right, and the rules of the game say deciders must answer in finite time
or they aren't deciders.
>
Possible inputs might be programs that do not halt, but will run
forever, and possible never repeat an exact state, and the decider, to
be a correct decider, must detect this in finite time.
>
>

If Busy Beavers are allowed an INFINITE tape in the context of the
Halting Problem then Simulating Halt Deciders are allowed INFINITE
resources.
>
/Flibble

>
Sure, they can use as much tape as they want, they just can't use
infinite time.
>
Note, Busy-Beaver is about detecting if a program IS a busy beaver, some
possible inputs will be non-halting with infinite growth, and these need
to be rejected, and rejected in finite time.

 I'm not claiming we can build a decider with infinite resources.
 I'm saying that if the problem permits infinite machines, then infinite
analyzers are fair game in theory.

No, you don't get to say that.

 The Flibble Reciprocity Principle:
 In theoretical computation, every permitted infinity in problem
formulation implies a permitted infinity in problem analysis.
 It's about playing the game by the rules of the game.
 

No, it is making up your own rules and admittion that you think cheating is ok.
The "Rules" exist, and are defined, and they say that decider do NOT get infinite time.

/Flibble

Sorry, you are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
You are just proving you are just as out of touch with reality as Peter, because you think something must be true just because it matches your own idea of what seems right, even though it goes against the definitions of the system you are stuck in unless you admit you are not in the "classical" system, but then you can't say you are "solving" anything, as you aren't in the system the problems are in, and you first need to show that your alternate system is at least close to the power of the classic system to get people even somewhat interested in your ideas.
Sorry, so far you are just striking out.