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

No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the
computation that itself is contained within.
It is only accountable for computing the mapping from the
input finite string to the actual behavior that this finite
string specifies.
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
int main()
{
   DDD();
}
HHH(DDD) is only accountable for the actual behavior that
its input specifies and is not accountable for the behavior
of the computation that itself is contained within:
the directly executed DDD();
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
(a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(g) goto (d) with one more level of simulation
Two complete simulations show a pair of identical TMD's are
simulating a pair of identical inputs.  We can see this thus
proving recursive simulation.
When we understand that embedded_H is accountable for the
behavior of its input and not accountable for the behavior
of the computation that itself is contained within then
we understand that embedded_H is necessarily correct to
transition to its own Ĥ.qn state.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer