Re: Analysis of Richard Damon’s Responses to Flibble

On 2025-05-18 20:07:10 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:03:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 5/18/25 3:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sun, 18 May 2025 15:49:33 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

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.

 The SHD and the simulation environment are on in the same.

 And thus a failure of the environment is a failure of the SHD.
 

 

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.

 You are just showing your lack of understanding of the system I am
talking about.
 /Flibble

 No, it seems you don't understand what you are talking about, or that
you have just failed to define what you are talking about.
 I have seen no system built up from the ground up, only thought about
things to change without defining HOW to effect those changes.

 I don't have to create a system to be able to reason about it.  You are
just wrong and fractally so.

If you don't create at least those parts that you "reason" about you
don't reason.
--
Mikko