Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Heathfield 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 16:05:57 +0100 Organization: Fix this later Lines: 69 Message-ID: <10178ol$39b3d$2@dont-email.me> References: <100r2mb$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> <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> <1016fu0$35b2t$1@dont-email.me> <10177eh$39etk$5@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 17:05:57 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e490a6530a5a0097a1e260eab0ada853"; logging-data="3452013"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ynsJQuifL51fyO161lNOfMaUqgSLw7y3Nb6QuVY0h3w==" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wAURSbLHk6ywtSmdLYLdogumo/A= In-Reply-To: <10177eh$39etk$5@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-GB On 28/05/2025 15:43, olcott wrote: > On 5/28/2025 3:02 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-05-28 07:46:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield said: >> >>> 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: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Cannot/must. >>> >>> Must/cannot. >>> >>> Surely you don't really expect us to take you seriously? >> >> Why not? The point of the halting theorem is that a halting >> decider >> cannot do what it must do. HHH is an example of that. >> > > We could make a requirement that the above sum(3,4) function > report on the sum of 5 + 6. This requirement would be incorrect. > > We could make a requirement that a CAD system provides the > radius of a square circle, this requirement would be incorrect. Which of your requirements are you now claiming to be incorrect? (a) "No HHH can report on the behavior of its caller" (b) "HHH must report on the behavior that its input actually specifies" -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within