Sujet : Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 02. Aug 2024, 08:24:46
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <v8hu3e$2meai$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-08-01 11:38:36 +0000, olcott said:
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?
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
How is that 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. 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.
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.
correctly emulated* According to the x86 semantics of
DDD, HHH, and HHH1.
It has always been correct for the last three years
and people try to get away with "it doesn't do what
I expect therefore its wrong".
That does not define what "accountable" means in the context of behaviours
of computations.
-- Mikko
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)
