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

Op 30.jul.2024 om 23:22 schreef olcott:

On 7/30/2024 4:09 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:13:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.

 

Always? Most TMs don't get themselves as input. OTOH that is one of
the most interesting cases.
The description of a TM specifies the behaviour of that machine
when it is running.
>

 The x86 code of DDD when correctly emulated by HHH according
to the semantics of the x86 code of DDD and HHH does have
different behavior that the directly executed DDD as a matter
of verified fact for three years.
 People deny this as if a smash a Boston Cream pie in the face
and they deny that there ever was any pie even while their
voice is incoherent because they are talking through the pie
smashed on their face.
 *I do not a more precise way to say this now*
DDD is emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 code of DDD and HHH. This does include a recursive call
from DDD to HHH(DDD) that cannot possibly stop repeating
unless HHH aborts its emulation of DDD.
 

HHH violates the semantics of the x86 language by skipping the last few instructions of a halting program. But olcott keeps dreaming of an infinite recursion that does not stop.
Dreams are no substitute for logic proofs.
No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end of a halting program.
Olcott's own claim that the simulated HHH does not reach its end confirms it. The trace he has shown also proves that HHH cannot reach the end of its own simulation. So, his own claims prove that it is true that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end, which makes the simulation incomplete and, therefore, incorrect.
--
Paradoxes in the relation between Creator and creature.
<http://www.wirholt.nl/English>.