Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_Analysis_of_Richard_Damon's_Response_to_Flibble_=E2=80=93_2025-05-21_(Well,_let_me_retort)?=
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:43 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <100p5ob$3vdf5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <WUJXP.1292990$4AM6.718172@fx17.ams4> <100nqh9$3jkhf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 08:48:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e5e91da64df84826df5ada4f1ea47d5f";
	logging-data="4175333"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FgHmGdlV+dGQmvmFXRgwz"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eDUucLuYVtTiOu00ZKBn6odMv1g=
Bytes: 5300

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.

-- 
Mikko