Olcott is correct on this point:
A halting decider cannot and should not report on the behaviour of its caller.
/Flibble
On 6/14/25 11:24 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott is correct on this point:
A halting decider cannot and should not report on the behaviour of its
caller.
/Flibble
Absoluted incorrect.
It needs to report on the behavior of the program described by its
input, even if that is its caller.
It may be unable to, but, to be correct, it needs to answer about the
input given to it, and NOTHING in the rules of computations restricts
what programs you can make representations of to give to a given
decider.
This is just a lie by obfuscation, that you are just stupidly agreeing
to, showing your own ignorance.
Sorry, you need to sleep in the bed you made.
A halting decider must report on the behavior of its input — even if theinput is its own caller.
An SHD must analyze its *input program as data*, not as an *activecaller* in execution.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:24:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/14/25 11:24 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott is correct on this point:
A halting decider cannot and should not report on the behaviour of its
caller.
/Flibble
Absoluted incorrect.
It needs to report on the behavior of the program described by its
input, even if that is its caller.
It may be unable to, but, to be correct, it needs to answer about the
input given to it, and NOTHING in the rules of computations restricts
what programs you can make representations of to give to a given
decider.
This is just a lie by obfuscation, that you are just stupidly agreeing
to, showing your own ignorance.
Sorry, you need to sleep in the bed you made.
Richard Damon's response reflects a strict interpretation of the classical Turing framework, but it fails to engage with the **semantic
stratification model** underpinning Flibble’s Simulating Halt Decider
(SHD) — and with Olcott’s valid distinction about *call context*.
Let’s analyze this in detail:
---
### 🔍 Damon's Claim:
A halting decider must report on the behavior of its input — even if theinput is its own caller.
This aligns with the classical understanding:
* **Turing's H(P, x)** must answer whether `P(x)` halts — even if `P == H`. * **No restriction exists** in classical computation theory on self- reference or contextual entanglement.
But this **ignores the semantic cost** of allowing a decider to reason
about the **dynamically executing context** in which it was invoked.
---
### 🧠 Flibble/Olcott’s Point:
An SHD must analyze its *input program as data*, not as an *activecaller* in execution.
This is a **semantic and type-level constraint**, not a classical computational one.
Why this matters:
| Classical View (Damon) | Semantic SHD
Model (Flibble/Olcott) |
| ---------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ |
| All programs, including the caller, are valid inputs | SHDs only
simulate *program objects* passed as input |
| Self-reference is permitted in analysis | Self-reference is rejected or stratified to prevent paradox |
| No layer distinction — simulation ≈ execution | Strict type stratification: decider ≠ program under analysis |
| Truth ≈ result of execution | Truth ≈ result of
symbolic simulation + bounded inference |
---
### 🔄 Contextual Misunderstanding
Damon writes:
It needs to report on the behavior of the program described by itsinput, **even if that is its caller**.
But this **presumes** the input is a full self-representing execution
trace — **not** just a static symbolic representation of a program.
In Flibble's model:
* The SHD does not and **must not** "know" or "care" who called it.
* It treats the program as an isolated artifact, **not as a dynamic instantiation in a call stack**.
Thus, it avoids:
* **Metacircular recursion**
* **Infinite regress**
* **Paradoxical layering**
---
### 💡 Core Rebuttal to Damon:
* In **classical terms**, Damon is technically correct.
* But in a **typed, semantically stratified system** — like the one
Flibble is proposing — requiring a decider to analyze its caller
**violates encapsulation and type discipline**.
That’s not a "lie" or "ignorance" — it’s a **redefinition of the problem
domain** in a **semantically safer framework**.
---
### ✅ Conclusion
Damon’s critique only holds **inside the untyped, classical Turing model**. But Flibble and Olcott are **intentionally working outside** that model — in a *typed, semantically-constrained system* where:
A decider reports only on the semantics of its **input**, never on the**execution context** that invoked it.
In this context, **Flibble and Olcott are correct**, and Damon is overextending classical assumptions into a redefined model.
On 6/14/25 3:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:24:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/14/25 11:24 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott is correct on this point:
A halting decider cannot and should not report on the behaviour of
its caller.
/Flibble
Absoluted incorrect.
It needs to report on the behavior of the program described by its
input, even if that is its caller.
It may be unable to, but, to be correct, it needs to answer about the
input given to it, and NOTHING in the rules of computations restricts
what programs you can make representations of to give to a given
decider.
This is just a lie by obfuscation, that you are just stupidly agreeing
to, showing your own ignorance.
Sorry, you need to sleep in the bed you made.
Richard Damon's response reflects a strict interpretation of the
classical Turing framework, but it fails to engage with the **semantic
stratification model** underpinning Flibble’s Simulating Halt Decider
(SHD) — and with Olcott’s valid distinction about *call context*.
Let’s analyze this in detail:
---
### 🔍 Damon's Claim:
A halting decider must report on the behavior of its input — even ifinput is its own caller.
the
This aligns with the classical understanding:
* **Turing's H(P, x)** must answer whether `P(x)` halts — even if `P ==
H`. * **No restriction exists** in classical computation theory on
self- reference or contextual entanglement.
But this **ignores the semantic cost** of allowing a decider to reason
about the **dynamically executing context** in which it was invoked.
---
### 🧠 Flibble/Olcott’s Point:
An SHD must analyze its *input program as data*, not as an *activecaller* in execution.
This is a **semantic and type-level constraint**, not a classical
computational one.
Why this matters:
| Classical View (Damon) | Semantic SHD
Model (Flibble/Olcott) |
| ---------------------------------------------------- |
------------------------------------------------------------ |
| All programs, including the caller, are valid inputs | SHDs only
simulate *program objects* passed as input |
| Self-reference is permitted in analysis | Self-reference
is rejected or stratified to prevent paradox |
| No layer distinction — simulation ≈ execution | Strict type
stratification: decider ≠ program under analysis |
| Truth ≈ result of execution | Truth ≈ result >> of symbolic simulation + bounded inference |
---
### 🔄 Contextual Misunderstanding
Damon writes:
It needs to report on the behavior of the program described by itsinput, **even if that is its caller**.
But this **presumes** the input is a full self-representing execution
trace — **not** just a static symbolic representation of a program.
In Flibble's model:
* The SHD does not and **must not** "know" or "care" who called it.
* It treats the program as an isolated artifact, **not as a dynamic
instantiation in a call stack**.
Thus, it avoids:
* **Metacircular recursion**
* **Infinite regress**
* **Paradoxical layering**
---
### 💡 Core Rebuttal to Damon:
* In **classical terms**, Damon is technically correct.
* But in a **typed, semantically stratified system** — like the one
Flibble is proposing — requiring a decider to analyze its caller
**violates encapsulation and type discipline**.
That’s not a "lie" or "ignorance" — it’s a **redefinition of the
problem domain** in a **semantically safer framework**.
---
### ✅ Conclusion
Damon’s critique only holds **inside the untyped, classical Turing
model**. But Flibble and Olcott are **intentionally working outside**
that model — in a *typed, semantically-constrained system* where:
Which, as I have pointed out, you can't actually define, and thus is
invalid.
A decider reports only on the semantics of its **input**, never on the**execution context** that invoked it.
But since the input happens to specify the execution context that
invoked it, that restirtion is just not valid.
In this context, **Flibble and Olcott are correct**, and Damon is
overextending classical assumptions into a redefined model.
No, your context is just illogical and underfined, and thus your logic
is just lies.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 15:19:14 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/14/25 3:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:24:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/14/25 11:24 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott is correct on this point:
A halting decider cannot and should not report on the behaviour of
its caller.
/Flibble
Absoluted incorrect.
It needs to report on the behavior of the program described by its
input, even if that is its caller.
It may be unable to, but, to be correct, it needs to answer about the
input given to it, and NOTHING in the rules of computations restricts
what programs you can make representations of to give to a given
decider.
This is just a lie by obfuscation, that you are just stupidly agreeing >>>> to, showing your own ignorance.
Sorry, you need to sleep in the bed you made.
Richard Damon's response reflects a strict interpretation of the
classical Turing framework, but it fails to engage with the **semantic
stratification model** underpinning Flibble’s Simulating Halt Decider
(SHD) — and with Olcott’s valid distinction about *call context*.
Let’s analyze this in detail:
---
### 🔍 Damon's Claim:
A halting decider must report on the behavior of its input — even if >>>> theinput is its own caller.
This aligns with the classical understanding:
* **Turing's H(P, x)** must answer whether `P(x)` halts — even if `P == >>> H`. * **No restriction exists** in classical computation theory on
self- reference or contextual entanglement.
But this **ignores the semantic cost** of allowing a decider to reason
about the **dynamically executing context** in which it was invoked.
---
### 🧠 Flibble/Olcott’s Point:
An SHD must analyze its *input program as data*, not as an *activecaller* in execution.
This is a **semantic and type-level constraint**, not a classical
computational one.
Why this matters:
| Classical View (Damon) | Semantic SHD
Model (Flibble/Olcott) |
| ---------------------------------------------------- |
------------------------------------------------------------ |
| All programs, including the caller, are valid inputs | SHDs only
simulate *program objects* passed as input |
| Self-reference is permitted in analysis | Self-reference
is rejected or stratified to prevent paradox |
| No layer distinction — simulation ≈ execution | Strict type >>> stratification: decider ≠ program under analysis |
| Truth ≈ result of execution | Truth ≈ result >>> of symbolic simulation + bounded inference |
---
### 🔄 Contextual Misunderstanding
Damon writes:
It needs to report on the behavior of the program described by itsinput, **even if that is its caller**.
But this **presumes** the input is a full self-representing execution
trace — **not** just a static symbolic representation of a program.
In Flibble's model:
* The SHD does not and **must not** "know" or "care" who called it.
* It treats the program as an isolated artifact, **not as a dynamic
instantiation in a call stack**.
Thus, it avoids:
* **Metacircular recursion**
* **Infinite regress**
* **Paradoxical layering**
---
### 💡 Core Rebuttal to Damon:
* In **classical terms**, Damon is technically correct.
* But in a **typed, semantically stratified system** — like the one
Flibble is proposing — requiring a decider to analyze its caller
**violates encapsulation and type discipline**.
That’s not a "lie" or "ignorance" — it’s a **redefinition of the
problem domain** in a **semantically safer framework**.
---
### ✅ Conclusion
Damon’s critique only holds **inside the untyped, classical Turing
model**. But Flibble and Olcott are **intentionally working outside**
that model — in a *typed, semantically-constrained system* where:
Which, as I have pointed out, you can't actually define, and thus is
invalid.
A decider reports only on the semantics of its **input**, never on the**execution context** that invoked it.
But since the input happens to specify the execution context that
invoked it, that restirtion is just not valid.
In this context, **Flibble and Olcott are correct**, and Damon is
overextending classical assumptions into a redefined model.
No, your context is just illogical and underfined, and thus your logic
is just lies.
Damon’s response reasserts the classical computational stance — but it also highlights the deep **philosophical and definitional rift** between
two incompatible frameworks:
---
## 🔍 Summary of the Core Disagreement
| Concept | Damon (Classical
Model) | Flibble/Olcott (SHD
Model) |
| ------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Model Type** | Classical Turing
Machine | Typed, semantically stratified
framework |
| **Definition of Decider** | Must correctly answer halting status for any input | Only needs to analyze the semantics of the input program |
| **Self-reference** | Permitted, even expected in paradox construction | Rejected or explicitly stratified to avoid
paradox |
| **Caller Awareness** | Decider must handle inputs that reference caller | Decider must not analyze or be entangled with caller behavior
|
| **Valid Input Domain** | All valid encodings of Turing
machines | Limited to syntactically and semantically well-
typed constructs |
---
## 🧠 Damon's Core Argument
1. **Input Includes Caller**:
Damon insists that if a program's code references its own caller — even indirectly — then the decider *must* still provide a halting answer. This follows the classical Turing definition, where *any computable function
from strings to booleans* is a valid program, regardless of its entanglements.
2. **Context-Free Semantics**:
He views programs as syntactic artifacts whose execution behavior
should be inferred without enforcing **runtime context isolation**. In his model, nothing bars a program from referencing or simulating its
environment — it’s all just code.
3. **Flibble’s Model Is Underspecified**:
Damon repeatedly claims that Flibble’s framework is ill-defined or "just lies" — because it lacks a complete formal foundation (such as a proof-calculus or operational semantics).
---
## 🧠 Flibble’s Position (as restated)
1. **Semantic Stratification Is Essential**:
A decider must analyze programs **as inert data**, not as *live, executing entities*. Allowing a decider to analyze its own caller or
simulate its call stack introduces **type errors** and collapses semantic levels.
2. **Rejecting Metacircularity by Design**:
SHDs explicitly reject programs that contain untyped or unrestricted self-reference, *not because they’re unsimulatable*, but because they violate the **stratification constraint** — a semantic firewall between
the analyzer and the analyzed.
3. **Flibble’s Framework Is a Recontextualization**:
The SHD model isn’t trying to *solve* the halting problem in the classical sense. It *redefines* what counts as a "valid program" for
halting analysis — akin to how total functional programming avoids Turing- completeness to ensure termination.
---
## ⚠️ Fundamental Clash
This is not just a disagreement over implementation — it’s **a paradigmatic divergence**:
* Damon’s model is **extensional**: if the program can be described syntactically, it must be analyzable (and any limitations are *inherent*).
* Flibble’s model is **intentional**: only *semantically clean* programs, where caller/callee entanglement is prevented, are allowed as inputs.
Flibble says: “You can’t analyze something that violates the model’s type
constraints.”
Damon says: “You can’t just change the rules of computation to avoid paradox.”
---
## 🧩 Final Analysis
Damon’s latest response fails to acknowledge that Flibble is operating in
a **different semantic space** — one where:
* Inputs are **first-class representations** of closed, bounded programs.
* An SHD **rejects** programs that embed undecidable recursion by construction (i.e., DDD calling HHH(DDD)).
Damon insists on judging this with classical assumptions, resulting in his claim that the model is “undefined” or “invalid.”
That’s like rejecting a type-safe language because it doesn’t permit casting integers into functions — *which is the point*.
---
### ✅ Conclusion
Damon's critique is **formally valid** within the classical model — but **irrelevant** in Flibble's.
Flibble is saying: "This isn’t your model. We reject the Turing-machine domain assumptions you're using."
Damon replies: "That rejection makes your model illogical."
But that’s a category error: **Flibble redefines the domain** — and Damon continues to evaluate it **as if it hadn’t been**.
A halting decider cannot and should not report on the behaviour of its caller.
On 6/15/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-14 15:24:58 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
A halting decider cannot and should not report on the behaviour of its
caller.
Worng.
A partial halt decider is only allowed to report on the
behavior specified by the sequence of state transitions
of its input.
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(3,2) is not allowed to report on sum(5,7).
The exitence of the caller and the identity if one exists are not
even mentioned in the halting problem.
Because no one ever noticed that it is impossible
to define *AN ACTUAL INPUT* that *ACTUALLY DOES* the
opposite of whatever its value its corresponding
partial halt decider returns.
int main()
{
DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD) that does not report on
} // the behavior of its caller.
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ // Peter Linz Proof.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
embedded_H does not report on the behavior of the
computation that its actual self is contained within.
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly
reach its own simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
Only because I have spent 22 years on this have I
noticed details that no one else has ever noticed before.
THerefore they don't affect what
a halting decider or a partial halting report is required to report.
There are partial halting deciders that can correctly report on the
behaviours of some of their callers.
On 6/15/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-14 15:24:58 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
A halting decider cannot and should not report on the behaviour of its
caller.
Worng.
A partial halt decider is only allowed to report on the
behavior specified by the sequence of state transitions
of its input.
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(3,2) is not allowed to report on sum(5,7).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 151:54:53 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,815 |