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 ever accountable for the behavior of the
 computation that itself is contained within
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:21:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9ace319d2ea17e10c576443a23fe9bd8fe0610fc@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$5@dont-email.me> <v8a2ql$u68g$1@dont-email.me>
	<v8bsgc$184u7$1@dont-email.me> <v8fe66$22ksu$1@dont-email.me>
	<v8fs3s$24rl1$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:21:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1095580"; 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: 2867
Lines: 38

Am Thu, 01 Aug 2024 06:38:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It computes the mapping from its input to the value of their sum.
>>>>>> That's obvious but is it 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.
Wut. HHH gets DDD as input.

> 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.
Those are identical. Its input is a description of its container.

> 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.
Where is the verification, especially in the light of the Root variable?

-- 
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.