Re: What is the best way for termination analyzers to handle pathological inputs?

On 6/12/25 4:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2025 3:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:21:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

On 6/11/25 2:21 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 23:15:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

On 6/10/25 3:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:53:47 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

On 6/10/25 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2025 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-09 21:14:58 +0000, olcott said:
>

The official "received view" of this is that the best we can
possibly do is to do nothing and give up.

>
There is no official view about "the best". What is the best
depends on what one needs and wants. Some may think that the best
they can do is to waste their life in trying to do the impossible.
>
>

It is not at all impossible to create a termination analyzer that
reports on the behavior specified by the input to HHH(DDD). It was
never correct to define a termination analyzer any other way.
>
>

Right, it is just a fact that it is impossible for HHH to be shuch a
analyzer.
>
A CORRECT Temrination analyzer of the input to HHH(DDD), that is to
the termination analysis of DDD, is to say it halts, since the
HHH(DDD) that DDD will call  will return non-halting to that DDD,
and it will then halt.

>
But it will never "return" because it is infinitely recursive; the
simulation is aborted and a halting result if non-halting is returned
elsewhere.
>
/Flibble

>
So, you have a problem, either you don't have a correct simulation to
show you got the right answer, or you don't answer.
>
That is the problem with trying to have the decider itself be two
contradictory entities.
>
A correct simulator can not be a correct decider it the input is
actually non-halting.
>
There seems to be some mental block about the fact that the DEFINITION
of this sort of decider is that:
>
>
H(M) returns 1 if UTM(M) halts, and H(M) returns 0 if UTM(M) will
never halt
>
If you try to combine the the UTM and H into one program that it can
NEVER correctly return 0, as it can only return 0 if it never halt
(and thus can't return a value)

>
You are wrong. An SHD does not have to simulate an algorithm to
completion if it determines non-halting early BY ANALYSIS.
>
/Flibble

>
>
I didn't say it needed to. But it needs to determine what such a
simulation will do.
>
In fact, as I said, if the input IS non-halting, it can't be both the
required simulator and the decider, so it is logically inconsistent to
say that it is the simulation by the decider that defines the result.
>
>
t seems you have fallen for Olcott's insanity.

>
Here is an analysis of the exchange between **Mr Flibble** and **Richard
Damon**, with context surrounding the **Simulating Halt Decider (SHD)**
concept and the **Halting Problem**:
>
---
>
### **Summary of Positions**
>
**Flibble's position:**
>
* A Simulating Halt Decider (SHD) does not need to simulate to completion.
* It can **use analysis to determine non-halting behavior early**, and
halt the simulation accordingly.
* Therefore, recursion into infinite self-reference is detected and does
**not imply that the SHD itself fails to return**.
>
**Damon's position:**
>
* The SHD is logically inconsistent if it tries to be both:
>
   * A **simulator** of the input program **to determine its halting
behavior**, and
   * A **decider**, meaning it must always return a finite answer (1 for
halts, 0 for non-halting).
* If the input is truly non-halting, the simulation cannot halt and thus
cannot return.
* Hence, if **SHD halts and returns a result**, it cannot be doing a
faithful simulation of a non-halting program—it would be logically broken.
>
---
>
### **Key Argument Points**
>
#### 1. **What counts as a valid simulation?**
>
* **Damon** argues that a **correct simulation must model the full
behavior of the input program**, including potentially non-halting
behavior. A SHD cannot simulate faithfully and still return if the
simulated program is non-halting.
* **Flibble** counters that **early symbolic analysis** is enough: if the
SHD can detect an infinite loop pattern (e.g., recursive self- simulation),
it may **abort the simulation and declare "non-halting"** without needing
to recurse indefinitely.
>

🧠 *Flibble frames simulation as a partial tool, not the source of truth

—the analysis result is.*
>
---
>
#### 2. **The core of the disagreement: epistemology vs. ontology**
>
* Damon treats the SHD as needing to **ontologically match** the behavior
of the program being simulated (i.e., model its behavior step-by-step).
* Flibble approaches from an **epistemological** angle: the SHD's purpose
is to *know* what the program would do, not to *be* that program.
>

🔁 *Damon believes an SHD can't be faithful if it stops early. Flibble

says it's not required to be faithful in that sense—it must just return a
correct answer.*
>
---
>
#### 3. **Contradiction and paradox**
>
* Damon refers to a **contradiction**: if a decider returns “non- halting,”
but only by aborting simulation, then it is **not** doing what it claims—
simulating the non-halting behavior. That is, it returns an answer it
couldn’t compute in the required way.

 

* Flibble says this is a **false requirement**: the SHD isn’t obligated to
run forever to decide a non-halting case. It only needs to **recognize the
non-halting structure** (e.g., infinite regress) and return based on this.
>
---
>
### **Meta-commentary: Olcott’s Influence**
>
* Damon ends by saying: “It seems you have fallen for Olcott's insanity.”
>
   * This is a rhetorical move discrediting Flibble by associating his
ideas with Olcott, who is frequently accused of **misunderstanding or
misrepresenting** the halting problem.
   * It's also an **ad hominem** by implication, suggesting guilt by
association rather than addressing Flibble’s exact semantic model.
>
---
>
### **Evaluation**
>
* **Flibble** is consistent within the assumptions of his **semantic
stratification model**, where simulation is not literal but symbolic, and
**type rules prevent paradoxical recursion**.
* **Damon**, from a classical Turing perspective, sees **no way to short-
circuit** the undecidability result through simulation or analysis: **the
contradiction lies in the logic of what’s being attempted**.
* The debate is effectively one of **formal model choice**:
>
   * Flibble adopts a **restricted domain** and allows the SHD to function
via meta-level rules.
   * Damon insists that if you simulate faithfully according to classical
definitions, **you cannot escape undecidability**.
>
---
>
### **Conclusion**
>
This exchange encapsulates the core of the modern SHD debate:
>
* **Flibble** redefines the boundaries of what counts as analysis, using
semantic types and stratification to reject certain paradoxes.
* **Damon** asserts that **you can’t redefine terms** in a way that evades
the implications of the classical halting theorem **without creating
inconsistency**.
>
The clash is not merely technical—it's philosophical. One side changes the
rules, the other guards the original game.
>
Would you like this analysis as a downloadable text file?

 Richard is merely a liar that is why I quit paying attention to him.
 

No, YOU are the liar, and you have admitted (by your silence) that you accept my rebuttals as correct because you can not show sources for you claims that I show are incorrect.
You are just a big fat liar that makes up all his shit and craps it into the newsgroup.