Sujet : Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within, unless that is its input
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 31. Jul 2024, 03:21:34
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <781bd43510475d701ceb7d4a51fdfd76a9bc6971@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/30/24 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/30/2024 1:53 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 30.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef 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"?
>
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
>
The behavior of the correct emulation of the x86 machine
language input DDD to a emulating halt decider HHH is not
the same as behavior of the direct execution of DDD when
the x86 machine language of DDD is correctly emulated
by emulating halt decider HHH that calls HHH(DDD) (itself).
>
>
In fact, HHH cannot possibly simulate *itself* correctly.
I have proven that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD
according to the semantics that the x86 machine code specifies.
No, it doesn't because if it did, it would see that this HHH will return to its caller just like it does.
The problem is that HHH thinks that HHH somehow behaves diffferently than it does, because it IGNORES the conditional behavior that HHH has.
Note, to emulate the x86 machine code of HHH, it needs to actually emulate that machine code, not what something sort of like HHH sees when it does its emulation.
(It is only "sort of like" since HHH CONDITIONALLY emulates its input as a decider, but HHH considers the HHH that DDD calls to be an UNCONDITIONAL emulator, which is a very important difference, so big that it is a LIE to confuse them after having it explained to you.
That you are using some other measure seems to prove that you
are a liar.
No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within
Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within (unless that is its input)
