Re: How could HHH report on the behavior of its caller?

On 5/16/25 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 8:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/15/25 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-15 01:30:08 +0000, olcott said:
>

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
int main()
{
   DDD();
}
>
If HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller
because this is a ridiculous requirement then how
can HHH report on the direct execution of DDD()
(AKA its caller).

>
Your HHH can use all information that Flibble's decider can. Flibble's
decider can determine and report that DDD halts.
>

>
I asked you (not Flibble) to show exactly how the requirement
that HHH report on the direct execution of DDD()
[that requires HHH to report on the behavior of its caller]
is not nonsense.
>
I presume that you dodge because you already know that
it is nonsense yet want to remain disagreeable anyway.
>

>
How can it be nonsense?

 int main()
{
   DDD(); // Can HHH report on the behavior of its caller?
}
 <divergence from the question snipped>
 

Just shows you believe in strawman.
HHH isn't being asked about the caller to DDD, as DDD doesn't even know (and can't know in computation theory) what its caller is.
DDD is asking HHH to report on the behavior of the program it is given.
I guess you don't consider answers that you don't want to be answers, because of course, you think you must be right, and can't imgaine how stupid you actually are.
Perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Textbook.
Of course, you don't beleive in textbooks, so you won't beleive in Dunning–Kruger which just proves it.