Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 17:34:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dc2cb7da1583ec58b52f28754f7a9ca8375fd02c@i2pn2.org>
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$1@dont-email.me>
 <100soke$p071$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 21:57:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1783864"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <100soke$p071$8@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/24/25 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

Nope, and you can't find a statement where I actually lied.

Just where I point out the REAL definition that differs from your lie of 
a definition.

Thus, YOU are the DAMNED LIAR, who has sunk his reputation into the lake 
of fire that he will join soon.

Your problem is you can't go more basic in you explainations to show the 
defintions you are trying to use, as it will reveal that you have 
nothing to base your work on, because your world is just a house of lies 
build on the sand of equivocation.