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

On 2025-05-26 19:18:02 +0000, olcott said:

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?

It seems that Olcott is so stupid that he can't understand his own words
and cannot write clearly enough for himself to understand.
--
Mikko