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

On 5/22/25 2:19 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.

The problem is that Flibble doesn't seem to understand that the system he is creating is so less powerful than the system with the Halting Problem

 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.

And yet, you then show that you lie, as you claim that you have shown that in the ACTUAL HALTING PROBLEM, the input are malformed, when they are not. That result only occurs within your own definitions, and thus you conclude with a category error.

 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.

Sure you do, when you claim that in the Halting Problem. the input are malformed. "The Halting Problem", wothout an explicit modifier, in a group devoted to computation theory, is a reference to the actual Halting Problem.
Thus, unless you start clarifying by making those references point to your own theory, maybe like refering to the Halting Problem for Flibble Machines, you are just caught in your lies.

 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.

Yet you don't use the Flibble qualifier when you made your statements, only after the fact in trying to defend your category errors.

 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.

But by using the notation of the classical problem, and not prefixing it with a disclaimer that you are NOT talking about the classical problem, your quatlifcations don't apply, and your statements are just lies.
If you want to make your own system, you need to BEGIN with an explicit incation that yoy aren't just looking at the classical problem under a different light, but that you are actually in a different system, and not try to make pronouncements that sound like you are applying them to the classical system.

 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.

Yet you try to say that it is part of the model as it is an answer.

 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.

But not being clear that this is what is being done. You state requriement that are only true in another system, but don't make it clear you ARE in another system.

 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.

Proof by contradiction does not create a contradiction in the system being looked at.
It shows that something can't be, because if it WAS, we would have a contradiction.
Note, the only contradiction that needs to happen is that the assumption that the decider is correct is contradicted.

 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.

Because Flibble doesn't actually state up front that he is in a different system, nor define what that system is.

 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.

Then why do you say it shows that the proof uses a mal-formed input?

 Therefore, Damon’s arguments, though logically valid in isolation, are
**misapplied** and **semantically irrelevant** within Flibble’s model.

Which wasn't in his presentation. You are starting to add it in, but it wasn't there to begin with, so my complaints WERE valid, and still are to the original description.
Sorry, you don't get to retcon your arguements, that just shows you are a liar.