Sujet : Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 26. May 2025, 18:29:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <10128df$23fpg$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/26/2025 12:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 26/05/2025 17:24, olcott wrote:
On 5/26/2025 11:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 26/05/2025 16:42, olcott wrote:
no
C function can see its own caller.
>
So because DDD calls HHH, HHH can't analyse the halting behaviour of DDD.
>
Got it.
>
>
I didn't say that.
Yes, you did.
On 24/5/2025 in Message-ID <100sr6o$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.
_DDD()
[00002192] 55 push ebp
[00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d pop ebp
[000021a3] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
How many recursive emulations does HHH have to
wait before its emulated DDD magically halts
on its own without ever needing to be aborted?
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer