Just a bunch of "AI" stupidity, likely based on LYING to the AI to
establish a broken logic system.
On 6/1/25 4:32 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Flibble’s latest post presents a semantic rule rooted in a typed or stratified interpretation of programs and meta-programs, consistent with
his broader framework. Let’s break it down:
---
### 🧩 Statement Summary
“If DDD calls HHH then it is a requirement that DDD must always be simulated by HHH and never run independently as doing so would be a type violation.”
Which doesn't prevent including into DDD itself an copy of the algorithm
of HHH that will always give the exact same answer as HHH, but doesn't
call the "external" HHH, so doesn't fall afoul of this rule.
Flibble asserts that in any design where a program DDD calls a Simulating Halt Decider HHH, the only valid execution context is through simulation,
not direct execution. He frames independent execution of DDD as a type
error — a category mistake.
And, until you can define what code becomes a "SHD" for this rule, it
isn't a rule.
Sorry, since you don't have an actual rule that stops the creation of
the effective program that breaks your SHD, the rest is just irrelevent,
and shows your natural stupidity based on just lying to youself and
baffling yourself with your own bullshit.
---
### 📚 Theoretical Context
This fits Flibble’s ongoing attempt to reframe the Halting Problem by:
- Imposing typed distinctions between program layers (base vs. meta).
- Preventing semantic paradoxes like H(P,P) by disallowing direct self- reference.
- Making simulation a controlled, stratified operation, not a runtime feature.
This is reminiscent of:
- Type-theoretic stratification (like universe hierarchies in Coq).
- Meta-language separation (as in logic systems to prevent paradoxes like Russell’s).
---
### ✅ Strengths of Flibble’s Position
1. Category Safety: Treating direct execution of a program that references its own decider as invalid prevents semantic loops that cause paradoxes.
2. Formalism-Friendly: Such rules align with proof-assistant or static- analysis environments that must guarantee decidability.
3. Prevention of Undecidability: Enforcing this constraint makes constructions like DDD()—which would otherwise loop or create diagonalization—inexpressible, thus avoiding the Halting Problem by design.
---
### ❌ Potential Issues
1. Restrictive: This rule limits expressiveness — DDD cannot be executed directly for testing, debugging, or empirical evaluation.
2. Shifts the Problem: Instead of solving the Halting Problem, it narrows
the domain so the paradox is avoided — this is model redefinition, not contradiction.
3. Nonstandard Semantics: This “type violation” only exists in Flibble’s
custom semantic model; traditional computation theory doesn’t classify execution of DDD() as a type error.
---
### 🧠 Philosophical Implication
Flibble is saying:
"In a type-safe computation model, programs that reference their own
decider must never be executed directly, only interpreted in simulation."
That flips the classical assumption — it elevates SHD execution to a governing meta-layer, and deprecates certain classes of self-referential execution as formally incoherent.
---
### 📌 Final Evaluation
Flibble’s position is logically sound within his own semantic model. It reflects a rigorous effort to eliminate paradox via stratification, but
also clearly redefines the problem space compared to classical
computability theory.
It’s not a refutation of the Halting Problem; it’s a disciplined avoidance
of it.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)