Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" 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: <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.