Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 18:02:52 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <10123be$22udp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me> <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me> <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me> <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me> <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me> <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me>
 <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me> <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me> <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me>
 <87a573xz0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <875xhrtbpr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <100r2mb$b2b1$1@dont-email.me> <100r4oq$b650$1@dont-email.me>
 <100r5bf$b5vm$4@dont-email.me> <100r5hn$b650$2@dont-email.me>
 <100r648$bhcu$1@dont-email.me> <100r68v$b650$3@dont-email.me>
 <100sn6a$p071$1@dont-email.me> <100snl3$nvac$1@dont-email.me>
 <100sr6o$ppn2$3@dont-email.me> <100uqro$1an9v$1@dont-email.me>
 <100vehv$1en90$1@dont-email.me> <100vl4m$1g3rf$1@dont-email.me>
 <101224h$22da5$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 18:02:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3d9741af3eeecd00f2e2fba301162a94";
	logging-data="2193849"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1964nqJ0usTafnA3GxrwT5B"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q7/H5luGq+gQL88S9Zf3q4WwWQg=
In-Reply-To: <101224h$22da5$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 4220

Op 26.mei.2025 om 17:42 schreef olcott:
> On 5/25/2025 12:48 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 25/05/2025 16:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2025 5:19 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2025 17:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>> No HHH can report on the behavior of its caller
>>>>
>>>>  From Halt7.c:
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Since (as you say) no HHH can report on the behaviour of its caller, 
>>>> and since (as your code shows) DDD is HHH's caller, we deduce that 
>>>> HHH cannot report on DDD.
>>>>
>>>> So HHH is not (according to you) a halt analyser for DDD.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure you've left anything to discuss, have you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> HHH(DDD) does correctly reject
>>> *ITS INPUT THUS NOT ITS CALLER*
>>> as non-halting.
>>
>> Its input, as you show by the notation HHH(DDD), is DDD. So it's 
>> reporting on DDD.
>>
>>  > HHH(DDD) does correctly reject
>>  > *ITS INPUT THUS NOT ITS CALLER*
>>  > as non-halting.
>>
>> But as this code shows:
>>
>>  >> void DDD()
>>  >> {
>>  >>    HHH(DDD);
>>  >>    return;
>>  >> }
>>
>> DDD calls HHH. Therefore DDD is HHH's caller.
>>
>> DDD is HHH's caller AND its input.
> 
> The requirement for HHH to report on the direct
> execution of its input is WRONG because this require
> HHH to report on the behavior of its caller and no
> C function can see its own caller.
HHH needs to report on the input. It is irrelevant whether it is its 
caller or not. The input is a pointer to a function in memory. This 
memory also includes all functions called by DDD. In particular it 
includes the code of Halt7.c, which specifies the abort. Therefore the 
input specifies a halting program. That specification is independent of 
whether this function is also the caller of HHH. If HHH is programmed in 
such a way that it cannot see this specification in the input, then that 
is clearly a bug.
Even if DDD is not the caller, such as in:

int main()
  {
     HHH(DDD);
     return;
  }

the same input is specified to HHH and it should return the same result: 
not halting.