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

On 7/30/2024 1:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-29 16:32:00 +0000, olcott said:
 

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?

>
int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
sum(5,6) is not accountable for reporting sum(3,2).

>
That claim is fully unjustified. How do you even define "accountable"
in the context of computations, automata, and deciders?
>

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

>
That's obvious but is it relevant?
>

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.

>
Now is that relevant?

>
Halt deciders report the halt status on the basis
of the behavior that a finite string input specifies.

 How is that relevant?
 

Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. *given an* *input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer