XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/12/2025 10:36 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   > On 12/12/2025 04:01, olcott wrote:   
   >> Principle 1: Turing machine deciders compute functions   
   >> from finite strings to {accept, reject} according to   
   >                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   > "some binary classification"   
   >   
   > however, {accept, reject implies a specific human purpose that is not   
   > intrinsic to the decider, so I think it's not appropriate for a general   
   > statement.   
   >   
   >   
      
   It seemed to be the generic way to say this.   
      
   Intuitively, a decider should be a Turing machine that given an input,   
   halts and either accepts or rejects, relaying its answer in one of many   
   equivalent ways, such as halting at an ACCEPT or REJECT state, or   
   leaving its answer on the output tape.   
   https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/84433/what-is-decider   
      
   --   
   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)