XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/18/2025 7:45 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/17/2025 6:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>> [ Newsgroups: trimmed ]   
   >   
   >>> In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   >>> It does indeed so make sure, since taking those irrelevant details into   
   >>> account would change the nature of the problem, making it less tractable.   
   >   
   >> In other words you are too fucking stupid to   
   >> recognize what is essentially the infinite   
   >> recursion behavior pattern. It that it?   
   >   
   > No, not at all.  You shouldn't be so gratuitously offensive.  It doesn't   
   > add anything to the discussion.   
   >   
      
   That people have been consistently flat out dishonest   
   about this every day for three years indicates the   
   need for escalation.   
      
   If you know nothing about programming and only know   
   math then you should have disclosed that you don't   
   have the mandatory prerequisites.   
      
   > I was talking at an abstract level, beyond your understanding.  When such   
   > happens, you should just drop out of the conversation rather than sully   
   > it with obscenities.   
   >   
      
   *The abstraction simply assumes away these key details*   
      
   (a) Halt deciders are required to report on the   
   actual behavior that their actual input actually   
   specifies.   
      
   (b) The halting problem requires Halt deciders to   
   report on other than the actual behavior that their   
   actual input actually specifies making the halting   
   problem incorrect.   
      
   If you don't know anything about programming you   
   won't be able to understand this.   
      
   >> --   
   >> 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)