XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/12/2025 8:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/12/25 8:27 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/12/2025 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/12/25 7:40 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> But that doesn't answer the question,   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> I am not going to infinitely answer the same   
   >> question. I asked you to go look up what I   
   >> already said. I am going to assume that you   
   >> cannot do that, not merely that you will not   
   >> do that.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > And I am telling you that I have looked at what you said, and it doesn't   
   > answer the question of HOW if the only input allowed is a specification   
   > of the steps that are actually executed, and not just the algorithm used   
   > to generate those steps,   
   HHH can't see any behavior besides the behavior   
   of DD simulated by HHH.   
      
      
   --   
   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)