Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is
 contained within
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:17:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8ac9fd02d6247cec58098de53c964a5feed41946@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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:17:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="797754"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2209
Lines: 26

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:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?

> Halt deciders report the halt status on the basis of the behavior that a
> finite string input specifies.
Which is constructed to be the same as the surrounding computation.

> Did you think that halt deciders report the halt status on some other
> basis?
No, what do you think the basis was?

> 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?

-- 
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.