Re: Comparison of Flibble's and Damon's Views on the Halting Problem

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.**