Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Richard_Damon=E2=80=99s_Responses_to_Fl?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ibble?=
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 15:36:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c545fbfbe16bf903401f54aa5105adcd706be7d8@i2pn2.org>
References: <stoWP.617520$lZjd.379219@fx05.ams4> <100dakg$2uvk$1@news.muc.de>
 <LcqWP.303931$JJT6.216255@fx16.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 19:36:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="924241"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <LcqWP.303931$JJT6.216255@fx16.ams4>
Bytes: 2856
Lines: 44

On 5/18/25 3:06 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2025 18:58:24 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
>>> Analysis of Richard Damon’s Responses to Flibble
>>> =================================================
>>
>>> Overview:
>>> ---------
>>> Richard Damon's critiques of Flibble's arguments regarding the Halting
>>> Problem and pathological inputs are based on a classical Turing model.
>>
>> Richard's criticism of your ideas are grounded in a thorough
>> understanding of the mathematics involved.
>>
>>> However, his rebuttals fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent the
>>> core of Flibble’s alternative framework.
>>
>> The first bit of arrogant nonsense.  Your understanding of the subject
>> is not at a high level, and thus you are in no position to propose
>> "alternative frameworks", failing as you do to grasp the basics of the
>> theory.
>>
>>> Below is a breakdown of the key errors in Damon’s reasoning.
>>
>> Asserting that Richard has made errors verges on libel, if it isn't
>> actually fully libel.  Unlike you, Richard is an expert on the topic,
>> and what he has said here over the years about the maths has not been
>> criticised by anybody competent.
>>
>> You could do well with showing a bit of respect for expertise.  Your
>> lack of it puts you on the same level as Peter Olcott.
>>
>> Your arrogance will in all likelihood prevent you from actually learning
>> about computation theory and the like.  That's a shame.  It's a
>> fascinating area of study.
>>
>> [ Snipped the rest, as there's nothing worthy of reply in the rest of
>> the post. ]
> 
> That's nice, dear. Go and make yourself a cup of tea.
> 
> /Flibble

In other words, you can't rebut someone's rebutal.