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

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.