Sujet : Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 01. Aug 2024, 14:21:55
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <9ace319d2ea17e10c576443a23fe9bd8fe0610fc@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Thu, 01 Aug 2024 06:38:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/1/2024 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-30 23:20:43 +0000, olcott said:
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?
>
It computes the mapping from its input to the value of their sum.
That's obvious but is it relevant?
>
The question is still unanswered. Apparently the answer is "no way" or
an answer would already be given.
int main() { DDD(); } halts yet is HHH is no allowed to consider that.
Wut. HHH gets DDD as input.
HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that
itself is contained within. HHH is only allowed to report on the
behavior that its input finite string specifies.
Those are identical. Its input is a description of its container.
It is a matter of verified fact that when DDD is correctly emulated by
HHH that the sequence of steps is different than when DDD is correctly
emulated by HHH1.
Where is the verification, especially in the light of the Root variable?
-- 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.
…