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

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
**misapplied** and **semantically irrelevant** within Flibble’s model.

That is Richard's primary rebuttal tactic, AKA the strawman fallacy.
Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument
with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the
position of the argument.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy
This kind of "fake" rebuttal is very effective at convincing gullible
fools and people hardly paying any attention.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer