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

Op 26.mei.2025 om 22:28 schreef Richard Heathfield:

On 26/05/2025 20:35, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Now DDD is not the caller of HHH

 Yes, it is.
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 

Only if we confuse levels of simulation.
  int main () {
    HHH(DDD);
  }
Here main is the caller of HHH. In the first level of simulation DDD is simulated and calls HHH, which could cause a second level of simulation, where DDD is the caller, but that does not happen, because the first HHH aborts the simulation at that point. At the first (and only level), DDD is not the caller of HHH. DDD is only the input to HHH, not the caller. HHH should decide about its input, not about its caller.
DDD is, in fact, a pointer to memory. This memory includes the code of DDD and all other code used by DDD, including the HHH that aborts. So, the input specifies a halting program. But HHH does not see that part of the specification, but aborts and makes the false assumption about itself that it does not halt. This bug in HHH does not change the verifiable fact that the input (not the caller) specifies a halting program.