Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
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 18:25:18 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <101285u$23u6u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <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> <10123oq$2320h$1@dont-email.me>
 <10124j3$22da5$16@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 19:25:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1c230c9c55177e2e04c1d1674c7da4d0";
	logging-data="2226398"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188gIREJ6/KxIFJ1d1u6lKgJFKFHKamkZp1nStMXubbPg=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:n+E8n5T9iIsqwvQHi3G69AEqOiM=
In-Reply-To: <10124j3$22da5$16@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB

On 26/05/2025 17:24, olcott wrote:
> On 5/26/2025 11:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 26/05/2025 16:42, olcott wrote:
>>> no
>>> C function can see its own caller.
>>
>> So because DDD calls HHH, HHH can't analyse the halting 
>> behaviour of DDD.
>>
>> Got it.
>>
> 
> I didn't say that.

Yes, you did.

On 24/5/2025 in Message-ID <100sr6o$ppn2$3@dont-email.me> you said:

> You are a damned liar when you say that I said
> that HHH must report on the behavior of its caller.
> 
> No HHH can report on the behavior of its caller
> for the same reason that no function can report
> on the value of the square-root of a dead cat.

Your words.

Since DDD is HHH's caller, according to you HHH can't report on 
DDD's behaviour.

> Functions computed by models of computation are only
> allowed to compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS.

So you're arguing both that HHH is only allowed to compute a 
mapping from DDD *and* that it can't report on DDD.

Got it. Yes, that's very clear.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within