XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/17/2025 5:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> *you cannot begin to understand the nuances that this entails*
>
> There's nothing particularly remarkable in what follows.
>
>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
>> property.
>
> Yes. So what? You can omit the redundant "on the basis that ... or
> syntactic property" without any loss. You could omit the redundant
> "only", too.
>
>> *This one single point makes your whole view a compete failure*
>
> Perhaps you could elaborate just how that platitude makes my view a
> failure. It's certainly not clear from what you've written.
>
The above that I formed myself has key details that
are simply assumed away from the conventional way
this is stated:
In computability theory, the halting problem is
the problem of determining, from a description
of an arbitrary computer program and an input,
whether the program will finish running, or
continue to run forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Makes sure to not take into account that an input
that calls its own decider specifies a different
sequence of steps than this same input to a decider
that it does not call.
You can disbelieve that DD simulated by HHH does not
specify recursive simulation the same way that you
can disbelieve that 2 + 3 = 5.
>> --
>> Copyright 2025 Olcott
>
>> My 28 year goal has been to make
>> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
