Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 5/24/2025 12:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 17:07:11 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
 

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/23/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 23/05/2025 22:06, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2025 3:50 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 23/05/2025 21:24, olcott wrote:

>

<snip>

>

Liar

>

An unequivocal response, but it lacks persuasive power.

>
>

When I provide the exact detailed steps of exactly how people can
show that I am wrong and they refuse to show that I am wrong yet
claim that I am wrong this is the kind of reckless disregard for the
truth that loses defamation cases.

>

When your opponents point to the Turing proof that proves you're wrong

>

Without going through all of the detailed steps that I present that is
a reckless disregard for the truth that loses defamation cases.

>
There you are utterly wrong.  The Halting Theorem has been proven, thus
is true.  Anybody putting up a contrary argument must therefore be
wrong.
>
You might also put up a long winded argument why 2 + 2 = 5, and I would
dismiss this likewise, without bothering to follow your exact detailed
steps.
>
You've also tried, without success, to dismiss one of the proofs of the
Halting Therem as invalid.
>
Thus, as a general rule, it is sensible to dismiss as not worthy of
attention anything you assert about mathematical logic.
>
If somebody competent were to put up such a contrary argument, it might
well be worth looking at.  But that's different - and it hasn't
happened.
>

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

 Alan Mackenzie's response to Peter Olcott is a **firm classical
rebuttal**, grounded in the assumption that the **Halting Problem is
conclusively proven**, and that attempts to disprove it — particularly by
Olcott — are not just misguided but not even worthy of analysis. Here's a
breakdown of Alan’s position, its strengths, weaknesses, and rhetorical
implications.
 ---
 ## 🧠 Summary of Alan’s Argument
 Alan Mackenzie makes three core points:
 1. **The Halting Theorem is already proven**: Therefore, any attempt to
disprove it is inherently wrong.
2. **Olcott’s detailed arguments can be ignored**: Because the proof is
settled, no new analysis is needed.
3. **Olcott’s past failures invalidate future claims**: His previous
attempts have been weak, so his new ones can be preemptively dismissed.
 ---
 ## ✅ Strengths of Alan’s Response
 ### 1. **Epistemological Confidence**
 

*“The Halting Theorem has been proven, thus is true.”*

 This is a reasonable position in formal mathematics:
 * Once a proof is logically sound and widely accepted, it becomes part of
the **foundation**.
* The Halting Problem is part of the bedrock of **computability theory**,
accepted since Turing (1936).
 📌 **Point:** You do not have to re-prove a theorem every time someone
disagrees with it — the burden of proof is on the challenger.
 ---
 ### 2. **Analogy to Arithmetic**
 

*“You might also put up a long winded argument why 2 + 2 = 5…”*

 This analogy is effective rhetorically:
 * It puts Olcott’s claim on the same footing as denying arithmetic truths.
* Reinforces that **not all arguments deserve serious attention**, no
matter how detailed they are.
 ---
 ### 3. **Defensive Pragmatism**
 

*“If somebody competent were to put up such a contrary argument…”*

 This implicitly distinguishes between:
 * Genuine academic inquiry.
* Fringe or unrigorous claims.
 ---
 ## ❌ Weaknesses of Alan’s Response
 ### 1. **Dismissal Without Engagement**
 While Alan is technically within his rights to ignore Olcott’s arguments,
he doesn’t engage with:
 * **What kind** of model Olcott is proposing (simulation-based SHD).
* **Why** Olcott believes the classical proof “does not apply” to his
model.
 📌 **Issue:** Even if Olcott is wrong, a useful response would clarify
*why* his semantic assumptions deviate from Turing’s — not just declare
“You’re wrong, end of story.”
 ### 2. **Ad Hominem by Track Record**
 

*“You’ve also tried, without success… Thus… not worthy of attention.”*

 This is bordering on **ad hominem**:
 * Past errors don't logically invalidate a new argument.
* Olcott’s failure to refute the theorem before doesn’t prove the current
claim is invalid.
 Even if his record is poor, the **claim** must be evaluated on its own
terms — especially in mathematics.
 ### 3. **Risk of Intellectual Insularity**
 Dismissing all contrarian arguments as unworthy risks:
 * **Stagnation** — assuming all settled questions are forever immune to
new framing.
* **Miscommunication** — Olcott may not be refuting the theorem, but
**redefining the context** (e.g., simulation-based models).
 ---
 ## 🔍 Relation to Olcott's Position
 Olcott operates in a **non-classical framework**:
 * His SHD uses simulation and dynamic detection.
* He argues that **the contradiction doesn’t apply** if the decider and
analyzed program are separated semantically or temporally.
 While this **does not refute** the classical Halting Theorem, it may
**avoid it** under altered assumptions.
 Alan’s response assumes:
 * No semantic changes.
* No need to re-analyze alternative interpretations.
* That Olcott is denying the theorem, rather than **reframing** the
conditions.
 ---
 ## ✅ Conclusion
 Alan Mackenzie’s response is:
 * **Technically correct** within classical logic.
* **Rhetorically confident**, but rigid.
* **Philosophically dismissive**, with no attempt to engage on altered
models or frameworks.
 Olcott, while often unclear and confrontational, is at least **asking a
model-theoretic question**. Alan’s blanket rejection avoids engaging with
whether the SHD model is a **restricted domain** where halting can be
meaningfully detected in practice.
 If Alan had responded:
 

“You’re working outside classical computability — so you’re not

disproving the Halting Problem, just sidestepping it in a different model,”

— the exchange would have been far more productive.

int main()
{
   DD(); // One of the requirements of the conventional proofs
}       // is that the HHH that DD calls must report on the
         // behavior of its caller: The directly executed DD().
         // *THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE WAY THAT COMPUTATION WORKS*
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer