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: Re: Comparison of Flibble's and Damon's Views on the Halting Problem
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 12:55:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dcca082d42d4915abfbde2bfbb34c0579f2bc2bf@i2pn2.org>
References: <sIW2Q.138101$v0S.38960@fx14.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:19:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="362018"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <sIW2Q.138101$v0S.38960@fx14.ams4>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

In other words, you are just admitting by yoru concepts, that you dom't 
understand the RULES of computation.

A SHD that doesn't halt can not be a DECIDER, as that is a core part of 
the definition of a DECIDER.

Also, I never said the decider must simulate the input, so it seems you 
are just not reading what has been said (or feeding the AI wrong data), 
just that the DEFINITION of the correct answer is determined by the 
running of the program described by the input, or the actual correct and 
complete simulation of the input.

The only case where the decider must completely simulate the input, is 
if the designed self-defines that the decision of the decider is based 
on the decider doing a correct simulation.

I guess you think it is ok to lying about your rules, which makes sense 
about you, as you just lie that you can make you distinction between 
decider and input, but can't actually define it.

On 6/13/25 10:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Comparison of Flibble's and Damon's Views on the Halting Problem
> 
> Summary:
> ---------
> This document compares the key conceptual disagreement between Mr. Flibble
> and Richard Damon regarding the behavior and role of a decider
> (particularly a Simulating Halt Decider, SHD) in analyzing whether a given
> program halts.
> 
> Flibble’s Position:
> --------------------
> - A Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) may halt and return a decision about
> whether its input program halts.
> - The halting of the SHD itself is **independent** of the halting status
> of the input.
> - The SHD can analyze the structure of the input program (e.g., detect
> infinite self-reference) and return "non-halting" without simulating the
> program to completion.
> - Simulation is treated as meta-level analysis, not literal execution.
> - Crucially: **“That the SHD halts does not mean the input halts.”**
> 
> Damon’s Position:
> ------------------
> - A decider’s simulation must mirror the actual behavior of the input
> program.
> - A correct decider must not abort simulation prematurely; it must
> simulate faithfully.
> - SHD halting and input halting are **tightly linked** — if SHD halts and
> returns “non-halting,” but the input actually halts, the SHD is wrong.
> - Damon rejects meta-level abstraction between SHD and input; all
> behaviors are judged within the same semantic layer.
> 
> Key Conflict Table:
> --------------------
> 
> | Concept                   | Flibble                          |
> Damon                             |
> |--------------------------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
> | SHD halting              | Irrelevant to input halting      | Must
> reflect input behavior       |
> | Infinite simulation path | Abort + non-halting decision     | Must
> simulate to detect           |
> | Input behavior source    | Static analysis, structural proof| Dynamic
> trace equivalence         |
> | Self-reference detection | Valid non-halting inference      | Invalid
> unless fully simulated    |
> | Semantic decoupling      | Crucial                          |
> Disallowed                        |
> 
> Conclusion:
> ------------
> - Flibble type-stratifies SHD from the program being analyzed, treating
> SHD as a meta-level observer.
> - Damon demands a unified semantic model where simulation and execution
> must match behaviorally.
> - This explains their persistent disagreement: **Flibble separates layers,
> Damon merges them.**