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

On 7/30/2024 2:52 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 11:24:35 -0500 schrieb 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"?

I mean: is that an accurate paraphrase?
 

An executing Turing machine is not allowed to report on its own
behavior. Every decider is only allowed to report on the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.

And what happens when those are the same?
 

That is always the case except in the rare exception that I
discovered where a simulating halt decider is simulating
the input that calls itself.
Because for the last 90 years everyone besides me rejected
the notion of a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without
any review no one ever noticed this anomaly before.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer