XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/18/2025 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/18/25 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/18/2025 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/18/25 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/18/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/18/25 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/18/2025 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/18/25 1:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/17/2025 10:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/17/25 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2025 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/25 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machines only transform finite string inputs into   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> values.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Right, and there correctness is based on the value they   
   >>>>>>>>>>> compute matching the answer to the question they are supposed   
   >>>>>>>>>>> to be answering.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> If the answer to the question is not encoded in the   
   >>>>>>>>>> input then this is not an undecidable decision problem   
   >>>>>>>>>> instance it is an incorrect question.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> It must be actually encoded in the input such   
   >>>>>>>>>> that it can be decoded from the input otherwise   
   >>>>>>>>>> the question is incorrect.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> So, for a supposed Halt Decider, that is does the machine   
   >>>>>>>>>>> that finite string represents halt when it is run.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> How many question include the answer in the question?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> With decision problem if the answer cannot be computed   
   >>>>>>>> from the input then the question is incorrect.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Says who?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Since the whole purpose of Computation Theory is to determine   
   >>>>>>> what questions are computable, that is just nonsense/   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> We cannot predict who the next president of   
   >>>>>> the United States will be on the sole basis   
   >>>>>> of the square-root of two.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So? That isn't a question that even comes up in the theory.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Likewise every computation must have a sufficient   
   >>>>>> basis.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, every computation has an algorithm that it will blindly and   
   >>>>> mechanically follow.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That seems accurate.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> WhoIsNextPresidentOfUSA(√2)   
   >>>> (entirely on the basis of the square root of two)   
   >>>   
   >>> So, you don't know what an algorithm is.   
   >>>   
   >>> Seems normal for you,   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The tiny little detail that no one noticed for   
   >>>> 90 years is that in those cases where the required   
   >>>> output cannot be derived from the actual input it   
   >>>> is the requirement itself that is incorrect.   
   >>>   
   >>> But the answer CAN be derived from the input, just not in finte time.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It is very difficult to see that this is Counter-factual.   
   >>   
   >   
   > So, UTMS don't exist?   
      
   You are on the right track.   
   You need much more details.   
      
   --   
   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)