Analysis of Richard Damon's Response to Flibble – 2025-05-21 ============================================================

Overview:
---------
In his latest response, Richard Damon continues to critique Flibble's
arguments on Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs) from a purely classical
Turing framework. While internally consistent within that system, Damon
fails to engage with the semantic, typed framework that Flibble explicitly operates within. As a result, Damon misreads core claims and commits the
very category error that Flibble critiques.

1. Misframing Flibble’s Intent
------------------------------

Damon: “Then you are willing to admit that your system has no impact on

the classical Halting Problem...?”

Flibble already concedes this. He isn’t trying to solve the classical
Halting Problem but to critique its framing by proposing a stricter
semantic model that excludes malformed self-referential inputs.

2. Simulation vs. Detection
---------------------------

Damon: “You can only detect infinite recursion if it is actually there.”

Agreed—and Flibble does not claim otherwise. His position is that some
cases of non-termination can be structurally recognized, not simulated,
and that SHDs should be partial and cautious, refusing to decide on semantically ambiguous input.

3. Total Deciders vs. Typed SHDs
--------------------------------

Damon: “To be a decider, it must have fully defined behavior for any

input.”

This applies to classical Turing deciders, not to Flibble's typed SHDs.
Typed deciders only accept inputs that are semantically coherent. Ill-
formed input (e.g. programs entangled with their decider) are rejected by design.

4. The DD() Misunderstanding
----------------------------

Damon: “If DD() terminates, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a decider to say it

doesn’t.”

Flibble agrees—but he argues DD() is semantically malformed. The issue isn’t that SHDs misclassify valid halting code—it’s that the input itself **breaks semantic boundaries** between code and meta-code.

5. Stack Overflow as Semantic Feedback
--------------------------------------

Damon: “Stack overflow isn't allowed in Turing-complete systems.”

True—but Flibble doesn’t treat it as part of the model, only as an indicator that a simulation has entered an ill-formed loop. Just like a
type checker catching malformed code, a crash is interpreted as a boundary signal.

6. Category Error in System Comparison
--------------------------------------

Damon: “Either use the original system or your claims are irrelevant.”

Flibble **is** using another system. And like type theory’s refinement of untyped systems, Flibble’s model proposes a safer and more meaningful semantic boundary that avoids classical contradictions through disciplined typing.

7. Misstating the Classical Proof
---------------------------------

Damon: “The Halting Problem has no contradiction.”

This is incorrect. The **proof by contradiction** constructs a paradox
when trying to define a universal halting decider. Flibble’s reframing
avoids the paradox by disallowing the construction that causes it.

Conclusion:
-----------
Damon critiques Flibble’s model from a classical standpoint and fails to recognize that Flibble is operating in a redefined, typed semantic space. Damon’s insistence on applying Turing’s assumptions to a type-safe framework leads him to repeat the category error that Flibble is
attempting to eliminate.

Flibble’s model doesn’t claim to invalidate Turing—it reframes the halting
problem to **exclude semantically malformed cases** and handle recursion structurally, not behaviorally.

Therefore, Damon’s arguments, though logically valid in isolation, are **misapplied** and **semantically irrelevant** within Flibble’s model.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/22/25 2:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Analysis of Richard Damon's Response to Flibble – 2025-05-21 ============================================================

Overview:
---------
In his latest response, Richard Damon continues to critique Flibble's arguments on Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs) from a purely classical
Turing framework. While internally consistent within that system, Damon
fails to engage with the semantic, typed framework that Flibble explicitly operates within. As a result, Damon misreads core claims and commits the
very category error that Flibble critiques.

The problem is that Flibble doesn't seem to understand that the system
he is creating is so less powerful than the system with the Halting Problem

1. Misframing Flibble’s Intent
------------------------------

Damon: “Then you are willing to admit that your system has no impact on

the classical Halting Problem...?”

Flibble already concedes this. He isn’t trying to solve the classical Halting Problem but to critique its framing by proposing a stricter
semantic model that excludes malformed self-referential inputs.

And yet, you then show that you lie, as you claim that you have shown
that in the ACTUAL HALTING PROBLEM, the input are malformed, when they
are not. That result only occurs within your own definitions, and thus
you conclude with a category error.

2. Simulation vs. Detection
---------------------------

Damon: “You can only detect infinite recursion if it is actually there.”

Agreed—and Flibble does not claim otherwise. His position is that some cases of non-termination can be structurally recognized, not simulated,
and that SHDs should be partial and cautious, refusing to decide on semantically ambiguous input.

Sure you do, when you claim that in the Halting Problem. the input are malformed. "The Halting Problem", wothout an explicit modifier, in a
group devoted to computation theory, is a reference to the actual
Halting Problem.

Thus, unless you start clarifying by making those references point to
your own theory, maybe like refering to the Halting Problem for Flibble Machines, you are just caught in your lies.

3. Total Deciders vs. Typed SHDs
--------------------------------

Damon: “To be a decider, it must have fully defined behavior for any

input.”

This applies to classical Turing deciders, not to Flibble's typed SHDs.
Typed deciders only accept inputs that are semantically coherent. Ill-
formed input (e.g. programs entangled with their decider) are rejected by design.

Yet you don't use the Flibble qualifier when you made your statements,
only after the fact in trying to defend your category errors.

4. The DD() Misunderstanding
----------------------------

Damon: “If DD() terminates, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a decider to say it

doesn’t.”

Flibble agrees—but he argues DD() is semantically malformed. The issue isn’t that SHDs misclassify valid halting code—it’s that the input itself
**breaks semantic boundaries** between code and meta-code.

But by using the notation of the classical problem, and not prefixing it
with a disclaimer that you are NOT talking about the classical problem,
your quatlifcations don't apply, and your statements are just lies.

If you want to make your own system, you need to BEGIN with an explicit incation that yoy aren't just looking at the classical problem under a different light, but that you are actually in a different system, and
not try to make pronouncements that sound like you are applying them to
the classical system.

5. Stack Overflow as Semantic Feedback
--------------------------------------

Damon: “Stack overflow isn't allowed in Turing-complete systems.”

True—but Flibble doesn’t treat it as part of the model, only as an indicator that a simulation has entered an ill-formed loop. Just like a
type checker catching malformed code, a crash is interpreted as a boundary signal.

Yet you try to say that it is part of the model as it is an answer.

6. Category Error in System Comparison
--------------------------------------

Damon: “Either use the original system or your claims are irrelevant.”

Flibble **is** using another system. And like type theory’s refinement of untyped systems, Flibble’s model proposes a safer and more meaningful semantic boundary that avoids classical contradictions through disciplined typing.

But not being clear that this is what is being done. You state
requriement that are only true in another system, but don't make it
clear you ARE in another system.

7. Misstating the Classical Proof
---------------------------------

Damon: “The Halting Problem has no contradiction.”

This is incorrect. The **proof by contradiction** constructs a paradox
when trying to define a universal halting decider. Flibble’s reframing avoids the paradox by disallowing the construction that causes it.

Proof by contradiction does not create a contradiction in the system
being looked at.

It shows that something can't be, because if it WAS, we would have a contradiction.

Note, the only contradiction that needs to happen is that the assumption
that the decider is correct is contradicted.

Conclusion:
-----------
Damon critiques Flibble’s model from a classical standpoint and fails to recognize that Flibble is operating in a redefined, typed semantic space. Damon’s insistence on applying Turing’s assumptions to a type-safe framework leads him to repeat the category error that Flibble is
attempting to eliminate.

Because Flibble doesn't actually state up front that he is in a
different system, nor define what that system is.

Flibble’s model doesn’t claim to invalidate Turing—it reframes the halting
problem to **exclude semantically malformed cases** and handle recursion structurally, not behaviorally.

Then why do you say it shows that the proof uses a mal-formed input?

Therefore, Damon’s arguments, though logically valid in isolation, are **misapplied** and **semantically irrelevant** within Flibble’s model.

Which wasn't in his presentation. You are starting to add it in, but it
wasn't there to begin with, so my complaints WERE valid, and still are
to the original description.

Sorry, you don't get to retcon your arguements, that just shows you are
a liar.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/23/25 12:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2025 1:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-22 18:31:05 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/22/2025 1:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Analysis of Richard Damon's Response to Flibble – 2025-05-21
============================================================

Overview:
---------
In his latest response, Richard Damon continues to critique Flibble's
arguments on Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs) from a purely classical
Turing framework. While internally consistent within that system, Damon >>>> fails to engage with the semantic, typed framework that Flibble
explicitly
operates within. As a result, Damon misreads core claims and commits
the
very category error that Flibble critiques.

1. Misframing Flibble’s Intent
------------------------------

Damon: “Then you are willing to admit that your system has no
impact on

the classical Halting Problem...?”

Flibble already concedes this. He isn’t trying to solve the classical >>>> Halting Problem but to critique its framing by proposing a stricter
semantic model that excludes malformed self-referential inputs.

2. Simulation vs. Detection
---------------------------

Damon: “You can only detect infinite recursion if it is actually
there.”

Agreed—and Flibble does not claim otherwise. His position is that some >>>> cases of non-termination can be structurally recognized, not simulated, >>>> and that SHDs should be partial and cautious, refusing to decide on
semantically ambiguous input.

3. Total Deciders vs. Typed SHDs
--------------------------------

Damon: “To be a decider, it must have fully defined behavior for any >>>> input.”

This applies to classical Turing deciders, not to Flibble's typed SHDs. >>>> Typed deciders only accept inputs that are semantically coherent. Ill- >>>> formed input (e.g. programs entangled with their decider) are
rejected by
design.

4. The DD() Misunderstanding
----------------------------

Damon: “If DD() terminates, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a decider to say it >>>> doesn’t.”

Flibble agrees—but he argues DD() is semantically malformed. The issue >>>> isn’t that SHDs misclassify valid halting code—it’s that the input >>>> itself
**breaks semantic boundaries** between code and meta-code.

5. Stack Overflow as Semantic Feedback
--------------------------------------

Damon: “Stack overflow isn't allowed in Turing-complete systems.” >>>>

True—but Flibble doesn’t treat it as part of the model, only as an >>>> indicator that a simulation has entered an ill-formed loop. Just like a >>>> type checker catching malformed code, a crash is interpreted as a
boundary
signal.

6. Category Error in System Comparison
--------------------------------------

Damon: “Either use the original system or your claims are irrelevant.”

Flibble **is** using another system. And like type theory’s
refinement of
untyped systems, Flibble’s model proposes a safer and more meaningful >>>> semantic boundary that avoids classical contradictions through
disciplined
typing.

7. Misstating the Classical Proof
---------------------------------

Damon: “The Halting Problem has no contradiction.”

This is incorrect. The **proof by contradiction** constructs a paradox >>>> when trying to define a universal halting decider. Flibble’s reframing >>>> avoids the paradox by disallowing the construction that causes it.

Conclusion:
-----------
Damon critiques Flibble’s model from a classical standpoint and
fails to
recognize that Flibble is operating in a redefined, typed semantic
space.
Damon’s insistence on applying Turing’s assumptions to a type-safe >>>> framework leads him to repeat the category error that Flibble is
attempting to eliminate.

Flibble’s model doesn’t claim to invalidate Turing—it reframes the >>>> halting
problem to **exclude semantically malformed cases** and handle
recursion
structurally, not behaviorally.

Therefore, Damon’s arguments, though logically valid in isolation, are >>

Not in isolation but in the context of halting problem.

Damon always changes the words that he is responding
to so that the gullible fools here that are hardly paying
attention might construe what he says as a rebuttal.

No, I go back to the words of the statement that the person is misquoting.

YOU are the one that changes the words, like Halting being DEFINED as
the behavior of the machine, and you trying to make it based on the
(partial) simulation done by the decider.

YOU are the liar.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/24/25 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/24/2025 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-23 16:21:26 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/23/2025 1:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-22 18:31:05 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/22/2025 1:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Analysis of Richard Damon's Response to Flibble – 2025-05-21
============================================================

Overview:
---------
In his latest response, Richard Damon continues to critique Flibble's >>>>>> arguments on Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs) from a purely classical >>>>>> Turing framework. While internally consistent within that system,
Damon
fails to engage with the semantic, typed framework that Flibble
explicitly
operates within. As a result, Damon misreads core claims and
commits the
very category error that Flibble critiques.

1. Misframing Flibble’s Intent
------------------------------

Damon: “Then you are willing to admit that your system has no
impact on

the classical Halting Problem...?”

Flibble already concedes this. He isn’t trying to solve the classical >>>>>> Halting Problem but to critique its framing by proposing a stricter >>>>>> semantic model that excludes malformed self-referential inputs.

2. Simulation vs. Detection
---------------------------

Damon: “You can only detect infinite recursion if it is actually >>>>>>> there.”

Agreed—and Flibble does not claim otherwise. His position is that >>>>>> some
cases of non-termination can be structurally recognized, not
simulated,
and that SHDs should be partial and cautious, refusing to decide on >>>>>> semantically ambiguous input.

3. Total Deciders vs. Typed SHDs
--------------------------------

Damon: “To be a decider, it must have fully defined behavior for any >>>>>> input.”

This applies to classical Turing deciders, not to Flibble's typed
SHDs.
Typed deciders only accept inputs that are semantically coherent.
Ill-
formed input (e.g. programs entangled with their decider) are
rejected by
design.

4. The DD() Misunderstanding
----------------------------

Damon: “If DD() terminates, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a decider to say it >>>>>> doesn’t.”

Flibble agrees—but he argues DD() is semantically malformed. The >>>>>> issue
isn’t that SHDs misclassify valid halting code—it’s that the input >>>>>> itself
**breaks semantic boundaries** between code and meta-code.

5. Stack Overflow as Semantic Feedback
--------------------------------------

Damon: “Stack overflow isn't allowed in Turing-complete systems.” >>>>>>

True—but Flibble doesn’t treat it as part of the model, only as an >>>>>> indicator that a simulation has entered an ill-formed loop. Just
like a
type checker catching malformed code, a crash is interpreted as a
boundary
signal.

6. Category Error in System Comparison
--------------------------------------

Damon: “Either use the original system or your claims are
irrelevant.”

Flibble **is** using another system. And like type theory’s
refinement of
untyped systems, Flibble’s model proposes a safer and more meaningful >>>>>> semantic boundary that avoids classical contradictions through
disciplined
typing.

7. Misstating the Classical Proof
---------------------------------

Damon: “The Halting Problem has no contradiction.”

This is incorrect. The **proof by contradiction** constructs a
paradox
when trying to define a universal halting decider. Flibble’s
reframing
avoids the paradox by disallowing the construction that causes it. >>>>>>

\

Conclusion:
-----------
Damon critiques Flibble’s model from a classical standpoint and
fails to
recognize that Flibble is operating in a redefined, typed semantic >>>>>> space.
Damon’s insistence on applying Turing’s assumptions to a type-safe >>>>>> framework leads him to repeat the category error that Flibble is
attempting to eliminate.

Flibble’s model doesn’t claim to invalidate Turing—it reframes the >>>>>> halting
problem to **exclude semantically malformed cases** and handle
recursion
structurally, not behaviorally.

Therefore, Damon’s arguments, though logically valid in isolation, >>>>>> are

Not in isolation but in the context of halting problem.

Damon always changes the words that he is responding
to so that the gullible fools here that are hardly paying
attention might construe what he says as a rebuttal.

If you only say that he changed the words that can be regarded as
equivalent to "yes, that's a better way to say what I meant". If
you mean something else you must say something else.

Richard is for the most part a damned liar.

Nope, and you can't find a statement where I actually lied.

Just where I point out the REAL definition that differs from your lie of
a definition.

Thus, YOU are the DAMNED LIAR, who has sunk his reputation into the lake
of fire that he will join soon.

Your problem is you can't go more basic in you explainations to show the defintions you are trying to use, as it will reveal that you have
nothing to base your work on, because your world is just a house of lies
build on the sand of equivocation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)