Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within, unless that is what the input descriibes

On 7/27/24 10:21 AM, olcott wrote:

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

Right, and the input to HHH(DDD) is the PROGRAM DDD

 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.
 

And if that finite string doesn't contain ALL the code of DDD, it just isn't the right input, or the right inerpreation of the inpt,

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

Nope, that comment just shows that you are just an ignorant pathoological liar.
Which case is it:
The input doesn't contain the full code of DDD, and thus isn't a proper input to ask about the behavior of DDD, and thus your whole arguement is based on a false premise that you are asking the question you say you are, since HHH can not do a correct x86 emulation of code that it does not have.
That you think of the input as containing a version of HHH that differs in actual behavior from the ACTUAL HHH that is there, and thus you are lying that you are asking about the DDD that is actually there (as that DOES call the HHH that behaves as the HHH that main calls).
That you admit that the input contains the same version of HHH as is there, but HHH is allowed to think of it as something different, and ignore that it WILL abort its emulation and return, and thus you are lying about HHH actually doing something at least generically called a correct emulation, since a correct emulation must replicate the behavior of the thing being emulated.
Or, you just admit that you are lying about what HHH is doing.
You get your choice, which way are you lying
YOU ARE LYIBG,
Try to sbow how what you are doing is ACTUALLY correct, since you admit that the diffect execution of DDD will halt, and the actual question to HHH is what the direct execution does, which you admit is different then th e answer you are giving.
Where is an actually reliable source, and not just one of your LYING CLAIMS that justifies your LYING CLAIM.
Sorry, you have just built your life on lies, and are paying the price for that in a destroyed reputation.