Re: Analysis of Richard Damon’s Responses to Flibble

On 5/18/2025 1:58 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

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.
 

He does understand the gist of the key relationships
between the elements of the conventional halting
problem proofs better than everyone here besides me.
All of the reviewers here have only the dogma of the
infallible word of textbook to back up their claims.
They totally lack any understanding of how actual
reasoning shows how these elements actually interrelate
with each other. To them false assumptions are treated
as axioms.
For example none of my reviewers understands that a
simulating halt decider must compute the mapping from
its input to the behavior that this input actually
specifies.
Ben proved that he did not understand this a few years
ago when he claimed that one of two functions that only
returns true or false correctly determines the halt
status of every input.

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. ]
 

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