Re: Olcott is correct on this point

On 6/14/25 3:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:24:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 6/14/25 11:24 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Olcott is correct on this point:
>
A halting decider cannot and should not report on the behaviour of its
caller.
>
/Flibble

>
Absoluted incorrect.
>
It needs to report on the behavior of the program described by its
input, even if that is its caller.
>
It may be unable to, but, to be correct, it needs to answer about the
input given to it, and NOTHING in the rules of computations restricts
what programs you can make representations of to give to a given
decider.
>
This is just a lie by obfuscation, that you are just stupidly agreeing
to, showing your own ignorance.
>
Sorry, you need to sleep in the bed you made.

 Richard Damon's response reflects a strict interpretation of the classical
Turing framework, but it fails to engage with the **semantic
stratification model** underpinning Flibble’s Simulating Halt Decider
(SHD) — and with Olcott’s valid distinction about *call context*.
 Let’s analyze this in detail:
 ---
 ### 🔍 Damon's Claim:
 

A halting decider must report on the behavior of its input — even if the

input is its own caller.
 This aligns with the classical understanding:
 * **Turing's H(P, x)** must answer whether `P(x)` halts — even if `P == H`.
* **No restriction exists** in classical computation theory on self-
reference or contextual entanglement.
 But this **ignores the semantic cost** of allowing a decider to reason
about the **dynamically executing context** in which it was invoked.
 ---
 ### 🧠 Flibble/Olcott’s Point:
 

An SHD must analyze its *input program as data*, not as an *active

caller* in execution.
 This is a **semantic and type-level constraint**, not a classical
computational one.
 Why this matters:
 | Classical View (Damon)                               | Semantic SHD
Model (Flibble/Olcott)                          |
| ---------------------------------------------------- |
------------------------------------------------------------ |
| All programs, including the caller, are valid inputs | SHDs only
simulate *program objects* passed as input         |
| Self-reference is permitted in analysis              | Self-reference is
rejected or stratified to prevent paradox  |
| No layer distinction — simulation ≈ execution        | Strict type
stratification: decider ≠ program under analysis |
| Truth ≈ result of execution                          | Truth ≈ result of
symbolic simulation + bounded inference    |
 ---
 ### 🔄 Contextual Misunderstanding
 Damon writes:
 

It needs to report on the behavior of the program described by its

input, **even if that is its caller**.
 But this **presumes** the input is a full self-representing execution
trace — **not** just a static symbolic representation of a program.
 In Flibble's model:
 * The SHD does not and **must not** "know" or "care" who called it.
* It treats the program as an isolated artifact, **not as a dynamic
instantiation in a call stack**.
 Thus, it avoids:
 * **Metacircular recursion**
* **Infinite regress**
* **Paradoxical layering**
 ---
 ### 💡 Core Rebuttal to Damon:
 * In **classical terms**, Damon is technically correct.
* But in a **typed, semantically stratified system** — like the one
Flibble is proposing — requiring a decider to analyze its caller
**violates encapsulation and type discipline**.
 That’s not a "lie" or "ignorance" — it’s a **redefinition of the problem
domain** in a **semantically safer framework**.
 ---
 ### ✅ Conclusion
 Damon’s critique only holds **inside the untyped, classical Turing model**.
But Flibble and Olcott are **intentionally working outside** that model —
in a *typed, semantically-constrained system* where:

Which, as I have pointed out, you can't actually define, and thus is invalid.

 

A decider reports only on the semantics of its **input**, never on the

**execution context** that invoked it.

But since the input happens to specify the execution context that invoked it, that restirtion is just not valid.

 In this context, **Flibble and Olcott are correct**, and Damon is
overextending classical assumptions into a redefined model.

No, your context is just illogical and underfined, and thus your logic is just lies.