XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/13/2025 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/13/25 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/13/2025 7:58 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>> 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?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Decider is a term-of-the-art of the theory of   
   >> computation. It simply decides whether or not   
   >> a finite string is a member of a set.   
   >>   
   >> The screwy thing about the term-of-the-art is   
   >> that if it gets even one wrong answer it is   
   >> not any decider at all.   
   >   
   > Right, because it needs to CORRECTLY decide, after all, logic is about   
   > gettting the right answers.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> As a term-of-the-art a decider must be all knowing.   
   >> This is easy for syntactic properties. Much more   
   >> difficult for semantic properties.   
   >   
   > Only because it needs to get all answers correct.   
   >   
   > If you think logic is allowed to get wrong answers, you don't understand   
   > how logic works.   
   >   
      
   That is must have the actual mind-of-god   
   for programming seems too much. A partial   
   halt decider confuses the Hell out of newbies.   
   A halt decider over a specific domain is   
   the middle ground.   
      
   >>   
   >> All Turing machines only compute the mapping   
   >> from an input finite string to some value.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Right, but to CORRECTLY be a machine to compute a specified function,   
   > the mapping they generate needs to match that function for all values.   
   >   
   > Thus, a Halt Decider, given a finite string that specifies a given   
   > Turing Machine (and its input) needs to return the result of if that   
   > machine will halt when it is run.   
   >   
      
   It must be the actual sequence of steps that   
   this finite string as an input actually specify.   
      
   I have gone over this with LLM systems and they   
   give me lots of push-back yet get it every time.   
      
   I have made my words so clear that the get it   
   in 10 pages rather than the 50 pages that it   
   used to take them.   
      
   > If its answer is ever wrong, it isn't a halt decider.   
   >   
      
   Terms-of-the-art should never violate the base   
   meaning of the same term. This really hurts   
   effective communication.   
      
   We could have a term-of-the-art   
   "died five minutes ago"   
   mean that he is in excellent health and   
   passed all of his health tests.   
      
   Rule-out literally means to get a ruler and   
   draw a black line through some words indicating   
   that they are now excluded.   
      
   That mental health uses this term backwards of   
   the rest of the world is itself quite nuts.   
   A rule-out in mental health means that these   
   issues are still being considered.   
      
   > If you think things can be wrong at time, but still right, you are   
   > admitting that you accept that you logic is just inconsistant.   
      
      
   --   
   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
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)