Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Comparison of Flibble's and Damon's Views on the Halting Problem
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:13:00 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <102m6bc$rgpv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <sIW2Q.138101$v0S.38960@fx14.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:13:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1939c4df549281b075671edfe39ddeb2";
	logging-data="901951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/6cRc21lEKg1xDOXKPWX19"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/UTJo/Y8wbCxv6bBl9dEQXl7BRk=

On 2025-06-13 14:37:12 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

> - Flibble type-stratifies SHD from the program being analyzed, treating
> SHD as a meta-level observer.

Thus excluding the halting problem from the scope of his work,
as there no such stratification ithe context of the the halting
problem and in particular not in the problem itself.

> - Damon demands a unified semantic model where simulation and execution
> must match behaviorally.

That requirement is a trivial consequence of the meaning of "simulation".

> - This explains their persistent disagreement: **Flibble separates layers,
> Damon merges them.**

No, one cannot merge layers where they don't exist in the first place.

-- 
Mikko