Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Halting Problem: How my refutation differs to Peter Olcott's Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 12:12:25 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <3bc01824e1d95a30b9784942a8b7ef3bc9ec8ff8@i2pn2.org> <445621fd6d6864f68b1c6e2040cff818c336600f@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 11:12:26 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="53834dc5258f5a8959041c054fdb6ec4"; logging-data="1078944"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18o8HkYitr6Hqk0wvfPGxmY" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:6ZzQH6JYkCBVFrsCZ8toD1OFWBo= On 2025-05-12 07:37:38 +0000, Richard Heathfield said: > On 12/05/2025 08:19, Mikko wrote: > > > >> That is contradicto in adiecto: a refertial dependncy between >> two entities of different categories cannot be >> self-referential. An entity can have a self-referential >> dependncy only to itself and it is always of the same category >> as it is itself. > > I won't contradict you, but descent parsing comes to mind, where expr() > calls term(), term() calls fact(), and fact() calls expr(). It > certainly smells self-referential, albeit at arm's length. Do you see > my point? I think I do. -- Mikko