Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the
 computation that itself is contained within UNLESS that is what the input
 actually describes
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:49:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6b0ed533a24575a074ced59bdd72d3458381ee7e@i2pn2.org>
References: <v80irs$2tlb5$1@dont-email.me> <v828ju$3a1gf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82vpu$3dftr$6@dont-email.me> <v8506m$3s27b$1@dont-email.me>
 <v88g60$i7kl$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:49:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="812577"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v88g60$i7kl$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3367
Lines: 65

On 7/29/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

And that is the behavior of the program that the input specifies, which 
must be a FULL program.

I.E. HHH(DDD) gets as the input ALL the code that DDD uses, inlcuding 
that of HHH.

> 
> Did you think that halt deciders report the halt
> status on some other basis?

Nope.

> 
> 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.
> 

Of course they are if that is what the input specifies by fully 
describing the algorithm of that program.

Where do you get you stupid ideas?

I think you just make them up out of your ignorance.


Yes, You can't ask about "The program that you are constained in" as 
that form of indirect reference, but there is nothing against giving it 
the representation of an algorithm that includes a copy of the decider, 
whether or not that algorithm is the one that is using it (which can't 
matter).