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

On 5/21/25 1:06 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

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.
 

But, if you do, then you need to accept the next step, which eventually becomes that all lies are true, or at least that it the path of Mr Olcott.
I DO often remind him that he has the option to make a new field to play in, but since Olcott's goal is to say that all standard logic is just illogical, that doesn't work for him.