Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within

On 2024-07-27 14:21:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/27/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-26 16:28:43 +0000, olcott said:
 

No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the
computation that itself is contained within.

 That claim is fully unjustified. How do you even define "accountable"
in the context of computations, automata, and deciders?

 int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
sum(5,6) is not accountable for reporting sum(3,2).

That claim is fully unjustified. How do you even define "accountable"
in the context of computations, automata, and deciders?

It computes the mapping from its input to the value of their sum.

That's obvious but is it relevant?

HHH must compute the mapping from its input finite string
of the x86 machine code of DDD to the behavior that this
finite string specifies and then report on the halt status
of this behavior.

Now is that relevant?
Besides, what does the word "must" mean?
And what justifies that "must"?

The input to HHH(DDD) specifies the equivalent of infinite
recursion as fully elaborated in another reply.

That claim is not proven but is it relevant here?
--
Mikko