Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Further analysis on Olcott's assertion
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:53:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 270
Message-ID: <102l20t$fib2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <bwg3Q.196179$0ia.139677@fx11.ams4>
 <887b66af18d2ab0b7b0003a36cd4635f8f2e0037@i2pn2.org>
 <qDn3Q.285377$VBab.243902@fx08.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 01:53:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c51c271cf6eb0f34185f6df029618a8";
	logging-data="510306"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18uPnf90HRr3DDLgTNF9uud"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QIDC1n4z3EJcsZ9aOoq67TnZuvQ=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250614-4, 6/14/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <qDn3Q.285377$VBab.243902@fx08.ams4>

On 6/14/2025 6:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:30:19 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> 
>> Lies by the use of AI are still just lies.
>>
>> It is NOT a matter or direction of analysis, but a confusion of
>> direction my obfuscated nomenclature.
>>
>> While it is true, you can't provide an input that means semantically
>> "Your caller", you can provide an input that means coencidentally the
>> caller, as the caller will be a program, and thus can be represented and
>> provided/
>>
>> You are just proving that you are so stupid you fall for PO's lies, and
>> try to hide behind it by the use of AI.
>>
>> In fact, all you are doing is demonstrating your natural stupidity by
>> trying to use AI to promote your broken theories.
>>
>>
>> On 6/14/25 11:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> ## ✅ Key Statement:
>>>
>>>> **A halting decider cannot and should not report on the behavior of
>>>> its
>>> caller.**
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> ## 📘 Why This Is Semantically Sound
>>>
>>> ### 1. **Direction of Analysis Must Be One-Way**
>>>
>>> A decider like `HHH(DDD)` performs **static analysis** on its *input*,
>>> treating `DDD` as an object of inspection — a syntactic or symbolic
>>> artifact. It must not make assumptions about **who called `HHH`**, or
>>> under what conditions.
>>>
>>> To do so would be:
>>>
>>> * A **category error**, conflating the simulated program with the
>>> **context** in which it appears.
>>> * A **violation of semantic encapsulation**, where analysis depends
>>> only on **input**, not environment.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> ### 2. **SHDs Must Maintain Stratified Types**
>>>
>>> Flibble's model relies on a **typed dependency hierarchy**:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> SHD layer → ordinary program layer ```
>>>
>>> This is **unidirectional**: the SHD can analyze the program, but the
>>> program cannot inspect or influence the SHD’s context or decision
>>> process.
>>>
>>> If a halting decider were required to simulate the behavior of its
>>> caller, you would violate this **layering principle**, because now:
>>>
>>> * The SHD must model not only its input but its *caller’s control
>>> flow*, * Leading to **semantic entanglement** and potential **infinite
>>> regress**.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> ### 3. **Undecidability Amplified by Caller Dependency**
>>>
>>> Imagine if the Halting Problem required H to answer:
>>>
>>>> “Will this program halt *in the context it is being run in*, including
>>> any surrounding logic?”
>>>
>>> This is logically incoherent:
>>>
>>> * You can’t define the halting behavior of a function *relative to an
>>> unknown and unbounded external context*.
>>> * You would force a **recursive simulation of the entire call chain**,
>>> defeating the notion of finite decidability.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> ## 🧠 Implication for the SHD Model
>>>
>>> Olcott’s and Flibble’s mutual point reflects a shared structural
>>> constraint:
>>>
>>> * SHDs **must not simulate upward** (caller analysis).
>>> * SHDs **must only analyze downward** (callee or static code input).
>>>
>>> This maintains both:
>>>
>>> * **Semantic sanity**, and * **Decidability within bounded scope**.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> ## ✅ Summary
>>>
>>>> **Yes, Olcott is correct**: requiring an SHD to reason about its
>>>> caller
>>> leads to **semantic paradox** or unresolvable dependency. Flibble’s SHD
>>> model is only viable because it *rejects such entanglement* by type
>>> stratification and static boundaries.
>>>
>>> This boundary is what allows the SHD to function *soundly and
>>> conservatively*, even in the presence of self-referential constructs
>>> like `DDD`.
> 
> Damon’s response to Flibble here is aggressive and dismissive, but it does
> contain a substantive philosophical challenge. Let’s separate the
> emotional rhetoric from the logical core to analyze the disagreement
> effectively.
> 
> ---
> 
> ## 🧠 Core Disagreement
> 
> | Concept              | Flibble's SHD
> Model
> | Damon's Classical
> Model
> |
> | -------------------- |
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |
> | **Decider’s Scope**  | Must be *semantically insulated* from its call
> context; it inspects only its **input**. | Must reason about the behavior
> of the program described by the input — *regardless of call context*. |
> | **Caller Awareness** | A decider cannot and should not "know" its
> caller.                                      | A decider **must** answer
> for inputs even if they are syntactic representations of the caller.
> |
> | **Self-reference**   | Rejected or bounded via type
> stratification.                                            | Allowed — and
> essential for classical proofs of undecidability (e.g.
> `D(D)`).                        |
> 
> ---
> 
> ## 🔍 Analysis of Damon's Response
> 
> ### 🔸 1. **Use of Language and Tone**
> 
> Damon leads with ad hominems:
> 
>> "Lies by the use of AI are still just lies."
>> "You are so stupid you fall for PO’s lies..."
>> "Demonstrating your natural stupidity..."
> 
> These statements serve more to express frustration than to advance the
> argument. They weaken Damon’s position rhetorically, especially since
> Flibble's points are made with formal clarity.
> 
> ### 🔸 2. **Philosophical Objection**
> 
> The core of Damon’s counter-argument is:
> 
>> “It is NOT a matter of direction of analysis, but a confusion of
> direction by obfuscated nomenclature.”
> 
> Damon rejects the idea that stratified semantic boundaries change the
> essence of the halting problem. In his model:
> 
> * Any valid **syntactic encoding** of a program is a valid input to a
> decider.
> * If that encoding represents the **caller**, it is *still just a string*.
> * So, any rejection of caller inputs is a **category violation** *on the
> part of the decider*, not the classical model.
> 
> This aligns with standard computability theory, where there are no layered
> "types" preventing a program from being passed to a function that analyzes
> it — *even if it is itself*.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========