Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flibble's Law
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:06:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4b00d42e81574be9911b61305a91b5bcd4b5b3c1@i2pn2.org>
References: <HjxMP.837300$7Fq7.451049@fx13.ams4>
 <19955e68400bc2ad935f413f012fe04011f7cf75@i2pn2.org>
 <V4zMP.1406251$NN2a.623234@fx15.ams4>
 <7c47bbe68c1cf317ddb2a0418564127c1471e11b@i2pn2.org>
 <wizMP.2987611$gHk7.1777169@fx17.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 23:07:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="920701"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <wizMP.2987611$gHk7.1777169@fx17.ams4>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 4/18/25 5:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 17:13:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> 
>> On 4/18/25 5:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 15:08:55 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/18/25 3:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> Flibble's Law:
>>>>>
>>>>> If a problem permits infinite behavior in its formulation, it permits
>>>>> infinite analysis of that behavior in its decidability scope.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Especially when the question is "Is the behavior of the process
>>>> infinite?"
>>>>
>>>> The issue is that fundamentally, knowledge must be based on finite
>>>> processes, as we can't do infinite analysis and do anything with the
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> Knowing that a process will be infinite, allows us to not waste all of
>>>> our time on something that won't get us an answer.
>>>>
>>>> The basic result of all this sort of proof, is that there are cases
>>>> where we can't ever know for certain if we are on a wild-goose-chase
>>>> that will never give a result, or we are on a path that WILL give a
>>>> result eventually if we persist long enough.
>>>>
>>>> Knowing that there ARE Wild-Goose-Chases as fundamental properties of
>>>> systems lets us plan better for what to do.
>>>>
>>>> We KNOW we can't be perfect in all we do, so we accept realistic
>>>> results, and try to keep improving.
>>>
>>> It is about playing the game by the rules of the game:
>>
>> Right, and the rules of the game say deciders must answer in finite time
>> or they aren't deciders.
>>
>> Possible inputs might be programs that do not halt, but will run
>> forever, and possible never repeat an exact state, and the decider, to
>> be a correct decider, must detect this in finite time.
>>
>>
>>> If Busy Beavers are allowed an INFINITE tape in the context of the
>>> Halting Problem then Simulating Halt Deciders are allowed INFINITE
>>> resources.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> Sure, they can use as much tape as they want, they just can't use
>> infinite time.
>>
>> Note, Busy-Beaver is about detecting if a program IS a busy beaver, some
>> possible inputs will be non-halting with infinite growth, and these need
>> to be rejected, and rejected in finite time.
> 
> I'm not claiming we can build a decider with infinite resources.
> 
> I'm saying that if the problem permits infinite machines, then infinite
> analyzers are fair game in theory.

No, you don't get to say that.

> 
> The Flibble Reciprocity Principle:
> 
> In theoretical computation, every permitted infinity in problem
> formulation implies a permitted infinity in problem analysis.
> 
> It's about playing the game by the rules of the game.
> 

No, it is making up your own rules and admittion that you think cheating 
is ok.

The "Rules" exist, and are defined, and they say that decider do NOT get 
infinite time.

> /Flibble

Sorry, you are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.

You are just proving you are just as out of touch with reality as Peter, 
because you think something must be true just because it matches your 
own idea of what seems right, even though it goes against the 
definitions of the system you are stuck in unless you admit you are not 
in the "classical" system, but then you can't say you are "solving" 
anything, as you aren't in the system the problems are in, and you first 
need to show that your alternate system is at least close to the power 
of the classic system to get people even somewhat interested in your ideas.

Sorry, so far you are just striking out.