XPost: comp.theory   
   From: tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk   
      
   On 13/12/2025 05:08, polcott wrote:   
      
   > 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   
      
   That's wrong. Intuitively, a decider makes some commitment relative to a   
   process; which could be just what to begin trying out, or even just what   
   to "believe" for the moment for a personal decider in their personal   
   continuum. Absent the process and the role that the decision shall play,   
   a (discrete) decision has to be absolute (there can be no meaning), so   
   the terminology must be interpreted as a mere classification.   
      
   Is "decider" a conventional terminology for something that analyses for   
   the specific purpose of a process that involves ostensible acceptance or   
   ostensible rejection continuations specifically?   
      
      
   --   
   Tristan Wibberley   
      
   The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except   
   citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,   
   of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it   
   verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to   
   promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation   
   of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general   
   superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train   
   any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that   
   will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)