Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 09:54:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f17373315d9e70fef25059088837ac369e548f90@i2pn2.org>
References: <1003g30$2pfv4$1@dont-email.me> <10045kb$314dt$1@dont-email.me>
 <10069bk$3dmiv$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 14:07:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="604827"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <10069bk$3dmiv$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/15/25 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-15 01:30:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    DDD();
>>> }
>>>
>>> If HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller
>>> because this is a ridiculous requirement then how
>>> can HHH report on the direct execution of DDD()
>>> (AKA its caller).
>>
>> Your HHH can use all information that Flibble's decider can. Flibble's
>> decider can determine and report that DDD halts.
>>
> 
> I asked you (not Flibble) to show exactly how the requirement
> that HHH report on the direct execution of DDD()
> [that requires HHH to report on the behavior of its caller]
> is not nonsense.
> 
> I presume that you dodge because you already know that
> it is nonsense yet want to remain disagreeable anyway.
> 

How can it be nonsense? It is an objective question with an actual 
answer, at least it is if HHH is an actual program and DDD is the 
progrma built by the template of the proof (and thus includes a copy of 
HHH as part of *IT*).

You question is sort of like complaining when someone asks you for the 
sum of 2 and 3, and you come back "2 what?, how can I answer about 
something that abstract.

Or How far away is the moon? And the answer is I can't get there to 
streach the measuring tape to get the distance.

Programs can be run, and that behavior is fully defined. You can only 
ask about the direct execution of Programs, as incomplete fragments 
don't have behavior due to the missing part. So, the question if 
completely proper, when the input is a program, and thus is the DDD 
above that includes the code for the particular HHH that it is built on, 
which WILL be the HHH that you claim is answerig correctly to be the 
"pathological proof program". Since you claim that HHH will "correctly" 
return 0, we can by inspection (or detailed simulation) see that DD will 
call HHH(DD) which will return 0 (by your stipulation, that is what the 
code does) and then DD will halt.

Thus, you are just proving yourself to be a liar.