XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
   >   
      
   Try and show the details of that using a UTM   
   like you suggested.   
      
   When you erase the key context of a reply I have   
   to go back to that context as I have done here.   
      
   Unless you come up with the reasoning yourself   
   through the method called Socratic questioning   
   you will simply disbelieve anything that I say   
   as you have just done.   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning   
      
      
   --   
   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)