Re: Flibble's Post: Resignation from the Halting Problem Debate

On 6/8/25 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2025 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

### **Flibble's Post: Resignation from the Halting Problem Debate**
>
#### **Text:**
>

*This halting problem "debate" isn't going to be resolved as both

"sides" are deeply entrenched and will not back down or attempt to meet in
the middle, most of the vitriol consists of ad hominems mostly from Damon
and Olcott.*

>
*For this reason I can no longer be arsed expending any effort

contributing myself so I will let AI (whose responses I do review) do so
instead.*

>
*/Flibble*

>
---
>
### **Analysis:**
>
#### 1. **Tone and Intent**
>
Flibble expresses frustration and resignation. The use of casual,
dismissive language (“can no longer be arsed”) signals emotional fatigue
and disillusionment with the state of the discussion. It's a clear
declaration of disengagement from active participation in the debate.
>
#### 2. **Criticism of the Debate Environment**
>
* **Entrenchment:** Flibble notes that neither side of the debate (likely
referring to the classical vs. reformist views on the Halting Problem) is
willing to compromise or engage productively.
* **Ad hominem attacks:** He specifically calls out **Damon** and

 

**Olcott** for turning the discussion into personal attacks rather than
logical rebuttals. This reflects a perception that the debate has devolved
into hostility rather than intellectual inquiry.
>

 You have not seen that I have explained every detail to
Richard 500 times and that he cannot remember any of these
detail from one post to the next.

No, I have pointed out your ERROR in those statements, which you just repeat.
You have not answered the pointed out error, because to do so you would need to refernce some source for a definition to show your view is correct.
Since, as I have pointed out, your argument STARTS with a fundamental cagtegory error, until you show that isn't acually an error by showing where it is allowed, your arguments about later points are just lies.
You have been given the option of moving your statements into some "new" Peter Olcott Other Programing System, where you can try to define things enough to make statements, but of course, if you do you can't make claims about what this does to the actual Halting Problem.
Since you fundamental claim is just a lie, that you can show that the proof program in the halting problem proof CAN be decided, IN THE CLASSICAL COMPUTAITON THEORY (as that is where the theorem is). Since you fail to meet the requirements of that proof system, you have shown nothing, and CAN NOT show anything in that system, because you logic just doesn't work there.
Sorry, all you have done is proven you are just a big fat ignorant liar.

 

#### 3. **Delegation to AI**
>
* Flibble declares an intent to delegate future contributions to AI,
framing it as a practical decision. However, he clarifies that he still
curates and reviews AI-generated content, preserving some level of
authorship and oversight.
* This move can be interpreted as both:
>
   * A protest against the hostile debate atmosphere.
   * An acknowledgment of AI’s capacity to remain neutral, logical, and
unbothered by emotional escalation.
>
#### 4. **Meta-commentary**
>
* The post functions as a meta-comment on the *unresolvability* of certain
philosophical or foundational debates (like the Halting Problem). Flibble
recognizes the limitations of discourse when definitions, goals, and
epistemologies differ irreconcilably.
>
---
>
### **Conclusion**
>
This post marks a shift from active philosophical engagement to passive
curation, and acts as a commentary on the toxicity of some corners of
foundational computing discourse. It reflects not a concession of
intellectual defeat but rather a withdrawal from what Flibble perceives as
an unproductive environment.
>
Would you like a downloadable version of this analysis as well?