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: Sat, 24 May 2025 10:29:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <100soke$p071$8@dont-email.me>
References: <WUJXP.1292990$4AM6.718172@fx17.ams4>
 <100nqh9$3jkhf$1@dont-email.me> <100p5ob$3vdf5$1@dont-email.me>
 <100q7a7$5buc$5@dont-email.me> <100rrqr$j60a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 17:29:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f513fb0f9fd54277dcf2467a994ccda0";
	logging-data="819425"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18B6ARPfYNa68zJoAnhvoTi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yKOySVJilf1FtDMzDBh3eWm4H4o=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250524-2, 5/24/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <100rrqr$j60a$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/24/2025 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Richard is for the most part a damned liar.

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