Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

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.

Functions computed by models of computation are only
allowed to compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS.

So you're arguing both that HHH is only allowed to compute a mapping from DDD *and* that it can't report on DDD.
Got it. Yes, that's very clear.
--
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