XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/12/2025 12:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/12/25 11:54 AM, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/12/2025 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/12/25 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/12/2025 8:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/12/25 9:29 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/12/2025 8:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/11/25 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Principle 1: Turing machine deciders compute functions   
   >>>>>>>> from finite strings to {accept, reject} according to   
   >>>>>>>> whether the input has a syntactic property or specifies   
   >>>>>>>> a semantic property.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider   
   >>>>>>>> report on the direct execution of a Turing machine,   
   >>>>>>>> thus category error.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Which is a semantic property of the string, assuming it is a   
   >>>>>>> representation of the machine in question,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Principle 1: Turing machine deciders compute functions   
   >>>>>> from finite strings to {accept, reject} according to   
   >>>>>> whether the input has a syntactic property or specifies   
   >>>>>> a semantic property.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Turing machine deciders only report on the behavior   
   >>>>>> of Turing machines indirectly through the proxy of   
   >>>>>> finite strings. *This key detail has been ignored*   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But, you seem to forget, that said finite string can fully contain   
   >>>>> the information needed to recreate that execution behavior, and   
   >>>>> thus that behavior is a valid target for a question to it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Principle 2: We measure the semantic property that   
   >>>>>> the finite string specifies by a UTM-based halt   
   >>>>>> decider that simulates its input finite string   
   >>>>>> step-by-step and watches the execution trace of   
   >>>>>> this behavior.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, it is measured by the results created by an ACTUAL UTM.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Principle 1: Turing machine deciders compute functions   
   >>>> from *finite string inputs* to {accept, reject} according   
   >>>> to whether the input has a syntactic property or specifies   
   >>>> a semantic property.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Turing machine deciders only report on the behavior   
   >>>> of Turing machines indirectly through the proxy of   
   >>>> finite string inputs. *This key detail has been ignored*   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> But the finite string is a representation of the Turing Machine,   
   >>   
   >> "representation" has always been way too vague of a term.   
   >   
   > Only because you don't understand what it means. That just shows your   
   > stupidity. Do you think the representation "25" is vague? (given the   
   > proper context, just like the input to the machine needs to be   
   > interpreted in the context of the machine).   
   >   
   > Your stupidity doesn't make the term and the logic based on it invalid,   
   > just your arguements about it.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> It is the actual sequence of steps specified by the input.   
   >   
   > Nope, the input is the complete representation of the algorithm of the   
   > machine,   
   >   
   >>   
   >> It is ONLY the actual sequence of steps encoded by the   
   >> finite string AS AN INPUT not in any other context.   
   >   
   > Right, and those steps are the full set of steps that the machine that   
   > has been described WILL do when it is run.   
   >   
      
   I am trying extra hard to do as Christ said and   
   love my enemies/adversaries.   
      
   The term-of-the-art describes also has a base meaning   
   that is far too vague. It comes for the other technical   
   term-of-the-art machine description. Description also   
   has a base meaning that is far too vague. The the base   
   meaning is so vague abstracts away crucial details.   
      
   The input to a Turing machine halt decider has always   
   been a finite string that SPECIFIES (in its encoding)   
   an exact sequence of steps. The decider only has what   
   this finite string encodes as its only basis.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   reliably computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)