XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/17/2025 11:42 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > [ Followup-To: set ]   
   >   
   > In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > I can, have done, as have many other posters here, and you just ignore   
   > reasoning.   
   >   
   >>>> The information that HHH is required to report   
   >>>> on simply is not contained in its input.   
   >   
   >>> Wrong.  It is.   
   >   
   > [ .... ]   
   >   
   >> If it was then DD simulated by HHH would derive   
   >> the same sequence of steps as DD simulated by HHH1.   
   >   
   > There's nothing wrong with the input, as many others have explained to   
   > you many times.  It is HHH and HHH1 which are defective.  They are the   
   > same function and return different results?  Haha!   
   >   
      
      
   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);   
   }   
      
   HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)   
   that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...   
      
   HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)   
   that returns to DD that returns to HHH1.   
      
   Until you show the correct execution traces proving   
   that DD simulated by HHH is the same as DD simulated   
   by HHH1 you are still showing a   
      
   "reckless disregard for the truth".   
   "reckless disregard for the truth".   
   "reckless disregard for the truth".   
   "reckless disregard for the truth".   
   "reckless disregard for the truth".   
      
   --   
   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)