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

On 7/30/2024 1:53 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott:

On 7/30/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:32:44 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/29/2024 3:17 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:32:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

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:

>

Halt deciders are not allowed to report on the behavior of the actual
computation that they themselves are contained within. They are only
allowed to compute the mapping from input finite strings.

What if the input is the same as the containing computation?

It always is except in the case where the decider is reporting on the TM
description that itself is contained within.

>

I don't understand. "The input is not the same as the containing
computation when deciding on the description of the containing
computation"?
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
The behavior of the correct emulation of the x86 machine
language input DDD to a emulating halt decider HHH is not
the same as behavior of the direct execution of DDD when
the x86 machine language of DDD is correctly emulated
by emulating halt decider HHH that calls HHH(DDD) (itself).
>

 In fact, HHH cannot possibly simulate *itself* correctly.

I have proven that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD
according to the semantics that the x86 machine code specifies.
That you are using some other measure seems to prove that you
are a liar.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer