XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/17/2025 10:32 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > [ Followup-To: set ]   
   >   
   > In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/15/2025 8:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-16, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior   
   >>>> of its caller because HHH has no way of   
   >>>> knowing what function is calling it.   
   >   
   >>>> This means that when the halting problem   
   >>>> requires HHH to report on the behavior of   
   >>>> its caller: DD() that its is requiring   
   >>>> something outside the scope of computation.   
   >   
   >>> That's dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail.   
   >   
   >> *I will be utterly relentless about this*   
   >> *I will be utterly relentless about this*   
   >> *I will be utterly relentless about this*   
   >   
   > Utterly wilful and stupid would be more like it.   
   >   
   >> Yes and now if you could just translate that   
   >> mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning   
   >> with a sound basis.   
   >   
   >> Not to denigrate you but I think that this   
   >> would be totally out of your depth as it   
   >> would be for most everyone.   
   >   
   > Your thinking is out of kilter with reality.   
   >   
      
   Yet you cannot show that on the basis of reasoning   
   so you try to dishonestly get way with mere baseless   
   rhetoric.   
      
   >> The information that HHH is required to report   
   >> on simply is not contained in its input.   
   >   
   > Wrong.  It is.   
   >   
      
   typedef int (*ptr)();   
   int HHH(ptr P);   
      
   int DD()   
   {   
      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
      if (Halt_Status)   
        HERE: goto HERE;   
      return Halt_Status;   
   }   
      
   int main()   
   {   
      HHH(DD);   
   }   
      
   If it was then DD simulated by HHH would derive   
   the same sequence of steps as DD simulated by HHH1.   
      
   HHH1 is identical to HHH except that DD does not   
   call HHH1 at all and DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive   
   simulation. That is the complete reason for the   
   different behavior.   
      
   That you flat out lie about this can be construed   
   as the "reckless disregard for the truth" that   
   loses libel cases. It cannot be construed as any   
   rebuttal of this self-evident truth.   
      
   In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident   
   proposition is a proposition that is known to be true   
   by understanding its meaning without proof...   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence   
      
   >> The information that HHH is required to report   
   >> on simply is not contained in its input.   
   >   
   > Wrong.  It is.   
   >   
   >> The information that HHH is required to report   
   >> on simply is not contained in its input.   
   >   
   > Wrong.  It is.   
   >   
   >> The information that HHH is required to report   
   >> on simply is not contained in its input.   
   >   
   > Wrong.  It is.   
   >   
   >> The information that HHH is required to report   
   >> on simply is not contained in its input.   
   >   
   > Wrong.  It is.   
   >   
   >> --   
   >> Copyright 2025 Olcott   
   >   
   >> My 28 year goal has been to make   
   >> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)