Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 13:17:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <1012b7l$24k39$2@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <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>
 <101285u$23u6u$1@dont-email.me> <10128df$23fpg$1@dont-email.me>
 <1012ape$24dfe$4@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 20:17:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="64fd189e500b414701d6509a3265afae";
	logging-data="2248809"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wj1s6xdKM+s9xTy1ilVmy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TAZhRuYu3LUbEOxPG2hA7qZBD48=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1012ape$24dfe$4@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250525-10, 5/25/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/26/2025 1:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 26.mei.2025 om 19:29 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/26/2025 12:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> HHH(DDD) does correctly report on the behavior that its
>> input specifies.
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>
>> How many recursive emulations does HHH have to
>> wait before its emulated DDD magically halts
>> on its own without ever needing to be aborted?
>>
> HHH fails to correctly simulate the program specified in the input, 

If you are not a damned liar you could show the
exact x86 instruction that HHH emulated incorrectly.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer