Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Richard_Damon=27s_Response_to_Flibble_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=93_2025-05-21_=28Well=2C_let_me_retort=29?=
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 11:21:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <100q7a7$5buc$5@dont-email.me>
References: <WUJXP.1292990$4AM6.718172@fx17.ams4>
 <100nqh9$3jkhf$1@dont-email.me> <100p5ob$3vdf5$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 18:21:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4606f99203c21d5702beb16569e2a0e8";
	logging-data="176076"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19kE9vL9a6Vf29yXf26mL/D"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sfuwij/61koEsc7Dg08T4sd4Hhg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <100p5ob$3vdf5$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250523-2, 5/23/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

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.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer