Re: Analysis of Richard Damon's Response to Flibble – 2025-05-21 (Well, let me retort)

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.