Path: 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 21:35:02 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <1012fp8$24dfe$10@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <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> <1012eie$25djd$1@dont-email.me>
 <1012epa$25ej1$1@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 21:35:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3d9741af3eeecd00f2e2fba301162a94";
	logging-data="2242030"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qvIFkCBgq8lUvXUvLPh9j"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F908h3gZkbUaZSyit5AbB51Zqfs=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <1012epa$25ej1$1@dont-email.me>

Op 26.mei.2025 om 21:18 schreef olcott:
> On 5/26/2025 2:14 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 26/05/2025 18:29, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> It can't. Mr Olcott said so. (See above.) You /do/ believe him, right?
>>
>>
> 
> In other words you are pretending to be so stupid that
> you don't know that the word *INPUT* and the word *CALLER*
> are not the exact same word?
We are not interested in the caller, because it is irrelevant. The input 
is a pointer to memory, including the code of Halt7.c, which specifies 
the abort and in this way specifies a halting program.

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

Now DDD is not the caller of HHH, but still a halting program is 
specified in the input. If HHH says something different, it did not 
correctly process the input.