Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 12:30:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <100svo5$r01g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me>
 <9af78257f75aa43a76d4b75e226bf92aeaf62463@i2pn2.org>
 <100ngbr$3hg1k$1@dont-email.me> <100p7gf$3voas$2@dont-email.me>
 <100q8cq$5buc$8@dont-email.me>
 <6bd30be886d32bf94f526d777e8ee5a9231cd43d@i2pn2.org>
 <100qlhs$8jis$1@dont-email.me> <100qn3h$7shk$3@dont-email.me>
 <100qo0e$918i$1@dont-email.me> <100qrgo$9mjb$1@dont-email.me>
 <100qrlu$9o8b$1@dont-email.me> <100subv$157b$1@news.muc.de>
 <I6nYP.1300569$4AM6.520383@fx17.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 19:30:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f513fb0f9fd54277dcf2467a994ccda0";
	logging-data="884784"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xztNfXVKhaXYA4JlcnPLe"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bL50f9bzIWXune/ADju6BfPVgBA=
In-Reply-To: <I6nYP.1300569$4AM6.520383@fx17.ams4>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250524-4, 5/24/2025), Outbound message

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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========