Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest:_Detecting_vs._Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:46 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <1013uvt$2hqpp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$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: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 11:00:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4f458f81f94fb0e0c9ccea186385c32b";
	logging-data="2681657"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+oly6+nUAY6qP51Lf7SJwj"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dsNiIqG2Op8IjieULROOwP1Npz8=

On 2025-05-26 19:18:02 +0000, olcott said:

> 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?

It seems that Olcott is so stupid that he can't understand his own words
and cannot write clearly enough for himself to understand.

-- 
Mikko