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

On 21/05/2025 03:15, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/25 3:10 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

<snip>

Conclusion: ----------- Flibble sharpens his argument by
clarifying that SHDs are not required to simulate infinite
execution. They are expected to *detect* infinite behavior
structurally and respond in finite time. This keeps them
within the bounds of what a decider must be and strengthens
the philosophical coherence of his redefinition of the
Halting Problem.

 But you can't "redefine" the Halting Problem and then say you have answered the Halting Problem.

Of course he can. In fact, life would be so much more pleasant if we would all just let him redefine the Halting Problem as "Mr Olcott and the psychotic penguin are both right because... well, *because*" and confine our responses to 'that's rriigghhtt, you are so clever...' until they tire of the Internet and turn back to their jelly and ice cream.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within