XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/12/2025 4:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/12/25 5:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/12/2025 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/12/25 5:07 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/12/2025 3:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/12/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/12/2025 3:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/12/25 3:55 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/12/2025 1:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/12/25 2:35 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> The string does not specify the steps, it specifies the   
   >>>>>>>>> algorthm used to generate those steps.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Counter-factual.   
   >>>>>>>> The string encoding directly specifies   
   >>>>>>>> an exact sequence of steps within the   
   >>>>>>>> model of computation.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Where do you get that? More of your zero-principle logic?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If it was, how can you say your C code is a valid input? that   
   >>>>>>> doesn't specify what steps happen, it specifies the logic used to   
   >>>>>>> generate the steps.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It is a string of bytes that specifies an   
   >>>>>> exact sequence of steps within a model of   
   >>>>>> computation.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> HOW??? Your input isn't that, so I guess you are just admitting you   
   >>>>> are just a liar.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If it is, then how is C code or x86 instrutions code a valid input.   
   >>>>> Those are not a "exact sequence of steps" that the machine goes   
   >>>>> through.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You must keep forgetting the details that   
   >>>> I have already provided.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Then remind me, because it seems you are just showing that you logic   
   >>> is broken.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> If you can't remind me then it seems that the   
   >> issue is you own lack of attention span. Feel   
   >> free to go back through what I said. If you   
   >> can't even go back through what I said then it   
   >> is definitely your own attention span.   
   >>   
   >   
   > But I DO repeat my reasoning,   
   You cannot even look up and see what I said.   
      
   --   
   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)