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