Re: Analysis of Constraints on a program that calls an SHD on itself

Just a bunch of "AI" stupidity, likely based on LYING to the AI to establish a broken logic system.
On 6/1/25 4:32 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Flibble’s latest post presents a semantic rule rooted in a typed or
stratified interpretation of programs and meta-programs, consistent with
his broader framework. Let’s break it down:
 ---
 ### 🧩 Statement Summary
 “If DDD calls HHH then it is a requirement that DDD must always be
simulated by HHH and never run independently as doing so would be a type
violation.”

Which doesn't prevent including into DDD itself an copy of the algorithm of HHH that will always give the exact same answer as HHH, but doesn't call the "external" HHH, so doesn't fall afoul of this rule.

 Flibble asserts that in any design where a program DDD calls a Simulating
Halt Decider HHH, the only valid execution context is through simulation,
not direct execution. He frames independent execution of DDD as a type
error — a category mistake.

And, until you can define what code becomes a "SHD" for this rule, it isn't a rule.
Sorry, since you don't have an actual rule that stops the creation of the effective program that breaks your SHD, the rest is just irrelevent, and shows your natural stupidity based on just lying to youself and baffling yourself with your own bullshit.

 ---
 ### 📚 Theoretical Context
 This fits Flibble’s ongoing attempt to reframe the Halting Problem by:
- Imposing typed distinctions between program layers (base vs. meta).
- Preventing semantic paradoxes like H(P,P) by disallowing direct self-
reference.
- Making simulation a controlled, stratified operation, not a runtime
feature.
 This is reminiscent of:
- Type-theoretic stratification (like universe hierarchies in Coq).
- Meta-language separation (as in logic systems to prevent paradoxes like
Russell’s).
 ---
 ### ✅ Strengths of Flibble’s Position
 1. Category Safety: Treating direct execution of a program that references
its own decider as invalid prevents semantic loops that cause paradoxes.
2. Formalism-Friendly: Such rules align with proof-assistant or static-
analysis environments that must guarantee decidability.
3. Prevention of Undecidability: Enforcing this constraint makes
constructions like DDD()—which would otherwise loop or create
diagonalization—inexpressible, thus avoiding the Halting Problem by design.
 ---
 ### ❌ Potential Issues
 1. Restrictive: This rule limits expressiveness — DDD cannot be executed
directly for testing, debugging, or empirical evaluation.
2. Shifts the Problem: Instead of solving the Halting Problem, it narrows
the domain so the paradox is avoided — this is model redefinition, not
contradiction.
3. Nonstandard Semantics: This “type violation” only exists in Flibble’s
custom semantic model; traditional computation theory doesn’t classify
execution of DDD() as a type error.
 ---
 ### 🧠 Philosophical Implication
 Flibble is saying:
"In a type-safe computation model, programs that reference their own
decider must never be executed directly, only interpreted in simulation."
 That flips the classical assumption — it elevates SHD execution to a
governing meta-layer, and deprecates certain classes of self-referential
execution as formally incoherent.
 ---
 ### 📌 Final Evaluation
 Flibble’s position is logically sound within his own semantic model. It
reflects a rigorous effort to eliminate paradox via stratification, but
also clearly redefines the problem space compared to classical
computability theory.
 It’s not a refutation of the Halting Problem; it’s a disciplined avoidance
of it.