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: Wed, 28 May 2025 11:01:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <1017c0e$3alqp$2@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4> <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>
 <1012fp8$24dfe$10@dont-email.me> <1012iu7$265fe$2@dont-email.me>
 <1013u9p$2h8vk$1@dont-email.me> <10140br$2hkq1$1@dont-email.me>
 <10144s4$2iqqa$1@dont-email.me> <1014dm7$2kke0$1@dont-email.me>
 <1015al0$2qlhp$1@dont-email.me> <1016f12$343p9$7@dont-email.me>
 <101772a$39etk$3@dont-email.me> <10178i0$39b3d$1@dont-email.me>
 <10179es$39etk$9@dont-email.me> <1017ab8$39b3c$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 18:01:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5dbd82c61536f260449484ef7088f69";
	logging-data="3495769"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Zc4XDVuNkBr1iJ2oa7ePg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ymNnA4sBTnN9suIL35ZH9kx2DmY=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250528-4, 5/28/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1017ab8$39b3c$2@dont-email.me>

On 5/28/2025 10:32 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 28/05/2025 16:17, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/28/2025 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 28/05/2025 15:36, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 27/05/2025 22:25, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/2025 8:11 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/05/2025 11:41, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course HHH can be called by any other function even by DDD. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And is. DDD's source shows this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that is completely irrelevant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not in my view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I accept that that's your view and I won't dispute it because I 
>>>>>>> understand your reasoning, but you and I are talking about 
>>>>>>> different things. My underlying point is quite simply that Olcott 
>>>>>>> made an incorrect and indeed contradictory claim about what HHH 
>>>>>>> can and cannot report on. At the very, *very* least he made an 
>>>>>>> insufficiently qualified claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
>>>>>> HHH must report on the behavior that its input actually
>>>>>> specifies the same way that sum(3,4) must report on the
>>>>>> sum of 3 + 4.
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD calls HHH, and you have said: "No HHH can report on the 
>>>>> behavior of its caller" - so HHH cannot report on DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be wrong if HHH did report on the behavior
>>>> of its caller. Functions computed by models of computation
>>>> are only allowed to compute the mapping from their inputs.
>>>
>>> So you're dead in the water.
>>>
>>>>> HHH's input is DDD, and you have said: "HHH must report on the 
>>>>> behavior that its input actually specifies" - so HHH must report on 
>>>>> DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _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]
>>>>
>>>> It is a tautology that every input to a simulating
>>>> termination analyzer would never stop running unless
>>>> aborted specifies a non-terminating sequence of
>>>> configurations.
>>>
>>> Fails to address my point, which is that you claim that HHH cannot 
>>> report on DDD and yet must report on DDD.
>>>
>>
>> HHH must report on the actual behavior that its actual
>> input actually specifies. Framing the problem any other
>> way is incorrect.
> 
> So you're saying that it must report on its input, which means that HHH 
> MUST report on its caller (because its caller /is/ its input). Fine. Why 
> didn't you say that to start with?
> 


*This is ALL that HHH sees*

_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]

That some people expect HHH to report
on things that it does not see is stupid.

It is a tautology that every input to a simulating
termination analyzer would never stop running unless
aborted specifies a non-terminating sequence of
configurations.


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