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
 descriibes
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 18:14:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <90d33090c31448c0e0c0cca8c2ab677c06004d35@i2pn2.org>
References: <v80irs$2tlb5$1@dont-email.me> <v828ju$3a1gf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82vpu$3dftr$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 22:14:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="580841"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v82vpu$3dftr$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3854
Lines: 70

On 7/27/24 10:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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).
> It computes the mapping from its input to the value of their sum.

Right, and the input to HHH(DDD) is the PROGRAM DDD

> 
> 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.
> 

And if that finite string doesn't contain ALL the code of DDD, it just 
isn't the right input, or the right inerpreation of the inpt,

> The input to HHH(DDD) specifies the equivalent of infinite
> recursion as fully elaborated in another reply.
> 

Nope, that comment just shows that you are just an ignorant 
pathoological liar.

Which case is it:

The input doesn't contain the full code of DDD, and thus isn't a proper 
input to ask about the behavior of DDD, and thus your whole arguement is 
based on a false premise that you are asking the question you say you 
are, since HHH can not do a correct x86 emulation of code that it does 
not have.

That you think of the input as containing a version of HHH that differs 
in actual behavior from the ACTUAL HHH that is there, and thus you are 
lying that you are asking about the DDD that is actually there (as that 
DOES call the HHH that behaves as the HHH that main calls).

That you admit that the input contains the same version of HHH as is 
there, but HHH is allowed to think of it as something different, and 
ignore that it WILL abort its emulation and return, and thus you are 
lying about HHH actually doing something at least generically called a 
correct emulation, since a correct emulation must replicate the behavior 
of the thing being emulated.

Or, you just admit that you are lying about what HHH is doing.

You get your choice, which way are you lying

YOU ARE LYIBG,

Try to sbow how what you are doing is ACTUALLY correct, since you admit 
that the diffect execution of DDD will halt, and the actual question to 
HHH is what the direct execution does, which you admit is different then 
th e answer you are giving.

Where is an actually reliable source, and not just one of your LYING 
CLAIMS that justifies your LYING CLAIM.

Sorry, you have just built your life on lies, and are paying the price 
for that in a destroyed reputation.