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

On 5/28/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/28/2025 10:05 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

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:
>
<snip>
>

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"

INCORRRECT
 

(b) "HHH must report on the behavior that its input actually specifies"

CORRECT
 It is a tautology that every input to a simulating
termination analyzer would never stop running unless
aborted specifies a non-terminating sequence of
configurations.
 

But, the "Behavior its input actually specifies" is the behavior of the program it represents when run, so you STA just gives the wrong answer, because you don't give it the correct input, because you start with a category error.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are a pathological liar.