XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/28/2025 5:14 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-28, dbush  wrote:   
   >> On 10/28/2025 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 10/28/2025 2:37 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/28/2025 11:35 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Deciders only compute a mapping from their actual   
   >>>>>>> inputs. Computing the mapping from non-inputs is   
   >>>>>>> outside of the scope of Turing machines.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Calculating the halting of certain inputs is indeed impossible   
   >>>>>> for some halting algorithms.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Not just impossible outside of the scope of every Turing machine.   
   >>>>> Its the same kind of thing as requiring the purely mental object   
   >>>>> of a Turing machine to bake a birthday cake.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It simply isn't. Inputs that are not correctly solvable by some   
   >>>> deciders are decided by some others.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> THIS INPUT IS SOLVABLE   
   >>> THE NON-INPUT IS OUT-OF-SCOPE   
   >>   
   >> Then why do you claim that H(D) must decide on this non input?   
   >   
   > Because he claims that D is two things; it has two properties:   
   > D.input and D.noninput.   
   >   
   > H(D) is solving D.input (as machines are required) and (believe   
   > him when he says) that D.input is nonterminating.   
   >   
   > What is terminating is D.noninput (he acknowledges).   
   >   
      
   Good job.   
   Your naming conventions make things very clear.   
      
   > If some H_other decider is tested on H_other(D), then the "Olcott   
   > reality distortion wave function" (ORDF) collapses, and D.input   
   > becomes the same as D.noninput.   
   >   
      
   *So we need to clarify*   
     D.input_to_H versus   
     D.non_input_to_H which can be:   
       D.input_to_H1   
       D.executed_from_main   
      
   I take Rice's semantic properties of programs and   
   clarify that this has always meant the semantic   
   properties of finite string machine descriptions.   
      
   Then I further divide this into   
   (a) semantic properties of INPUT finite strings   
   (b) semantic properties of NON_INPUT finite strings   
      
   > When observed by H, D.input and D.noninput have different quantum   
   > states: D is effectively split, identifiable as two particles. When   
   > observed by non-H, no difference in any quantum properties (charge, spin   
   > ...) is observed, and so D.input and D.noninput must be one and the   
   > same; they are indistinguishable particles:   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indistinguishable_particles   
   >   
   > Olcott is a top quantum computer scientist, on the level of Dirac or   
   > Feynman.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)