Sujet : Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 29. Jul 2024, 21:17:55
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <8ac9fd02d6247cec58098de53c964a5feed41946@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
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:
>
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?
Halt deciders report the halt status on the basis of the behavior that a
finite string input specifies.
Which is constructed to be the same as the surrounding computation.
Did you think that halt deciders report the halt status on some other
basis?
No, what do you think the basis was?
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?
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
…