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

On 5/28/25 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/28/2025 2:46 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

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.
>

 It would be wrong if HHH did report on the behavior
of its caller. Functions computed by models of computation
are only allowed to compute the mapping from their inputs.

Why?
That *IS* what it input represent, and so is what the mapping it is supposed to be computing is based on.

 

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.
>

 _DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]

Not a program, not a valid input.

 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.

And the ACTUAL input from the proof does.
All you do is LIE.

 

Cannot/must.
>
Must/cannot.
>
Surely you don't really expect us to take you seriously?
>