XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/15/2025 2:09 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except   
   > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as noted in   
   > the sig.   
   >   
   > On 14/12/2025 16:16, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/14/2025 6:51 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>> On 13/12/2025 19:50, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/13/2025 1:33 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>>>> On 13/12/2025 16:44, olcott wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> Turing machine Deciders are a subset of this   
   >>>>>> where the value indicates accept or reject a   
   >>>>>> finite string by some criterion measure.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I continue to reject the use of "accept" and "reject" here. And I also   
   >>>>> reject the use of "indicates" wrt to them.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> My goal is to have accepted definitions as my only basis.   
   >>>   
   >>> Oh! I just noticed it's a new statement with "by some criterion measure"   
   >>> which makes it excellent. I retract my rejection.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Good.   
   >>   
   >> This is my first post on the halting Problem   
   >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/V7wzVvx8IMw/m/ggPE6a-60cUJ   
   >>   
   >> I worked for 15 years mostly on the basis of intuition.   
   >> Then 2 more years creating fully operational code. Then   
   >> 3 years of discussing this code.   
   >>   
   >> Now I am finally getting around to anchoring these   
   >> intuitions and my working code in standard definitions.   
   >>   
   >> My current working code.   
   >> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
   >>   
   >> I had to refrain from learning the standard definitions   
   >> before now or they would have boxed me into the standard   
   >> views.   
   >>   
   >> My insights are entirely from slight nuances of meaning   
   >> that are abstracted away in the standard definitions.   
   >>   
   >> I had to carefully reverse-engineer the exact details   
   >> of what was actually happening before I could see what   
   >> nuances of meaning were being left out. Initially I   
   >> had to use my own non-standard terminology to do this.   
   >>   
   >> This is my first principle   
   >> All Turing machines only compute the mapping   
   >> from input finite strings to some value.   
   >   
   > My second correction of three that are needed (I will return to the   
   > third later once I've thought more):   
   >   
   > "value" is not defined, a first principle must be elementary (introduces   
   > terms of art but does not depend on them).   
   >   
   > Here are two alternatives to illuminate the matter, but I think they're   
   > not good enough:   
   >   
   > 1st alternative: You need a prior principle defining "value". That's not   
   > entirely intuitive though we pretend it is, like so much that you   
   > correctly find to be a problem.   
   >   
   > 2nd alternative: All Automatic Turing Machines compute only an output   
   > finite string from an input finite string.   
   >   
   > They're wrong because a turing machine has a state (m-configuration),   
   > whose change--and given a constant initial state then also itself--is,   
   > in effect, computed.   
   >   
   > The 3rd alternative is contingent as noted, a contingency whose premise   
   > I think you suppose:   
   >   
   > 3rd alternative, admissible when considering an ATM to be a physical   
   > machine rather than a mere formal system: An Automatic Turing Machine is   
   > one of those things restricted--at least in part--such that   
      
   > it computes   
   > nothing more than an output finite string along with its own halting   
   > state from an input finite string along with its own pre-nominated   
   > initial state.   
   >   
   >   
      
   A TM halt decider computes the halt status specified   
   by an input finite string on its tape. It begins in its   
   own start state and ends in one of its its own final   
   halt states.   
      
   To say that a TM halt decider determines whether or   
   not machine M halts on input w is less than precisely   
   accurate.   
      
      
   --   
   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)