XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/20/2025 7:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/20/25 8:00 AM, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/19/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/19/25 5:07 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>>> On 18/12/2025 04:29, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/17/25 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/17/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 16/12/2025 19:30, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> (a) TMs only transform input finite strings to values   
   >>>>>>>> using finite string transformation rules.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> (b) There exists no alternative more definitive measure   
   >>>>>>>> of the behavior that the input to H(P) specifies (within   
   >>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules) than P simulated by H.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The halting problem does not ask about a string. It asks about   
   >>>>>>> a meaning, which is a computation. Therefore the measure of the   
   >>>>>>> behaviour is the computation asked about. If the input string   
   >>>>>>> does not specify that behaviour then it is a wrong string.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It asks about the semantic meaning that its   
   >>>>>> input finite string specifies. (See Rice)   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And "Semantic Meaning" relates to directly running the program the   
   >>>>> input   
   >>>>> represents, something you are trying to say is out of scope, but that   
   >>>>> means that you are trying to put semantics out of scope.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> eh? I'm sure it relates to what /would/ have happened if you directly   
   >>>> run it, and other properties. You may infer them by other means such as   
   >>>> by translating the program to an input for a different machine and   
   >>>> running that which then reports or fails to report on properties of the   
   >>>> original program; that includes, but is not limited to, halting with   
   >>>> the   
   >>>> same final state as the original program would on.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> "Meaning" should have a single source of truth. There may be   
   >>> alternate ways to determine it, but those are shown to be correct, by   
   >>> being able to trace it back to that original source.   
   >>>   
   >>> Rice's proof was based on defined "Semantics" of strings representing   
   >>> machines, as having that meaning established by the running of the   
   >>> program the input represents.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The halt decider cannot run a machine it can   
   >> only apply finite string transformation rules   
   >> to input finite strings.   
   >   
   > So?   
   >   
   > It doesn't need to run the machine, only give an answer that is   
   > correctly determined by doing so.   
   >   
      
   Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite string   
   transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
      
   In cases of a pathological self-reference relationship   
   between Decider H and Input P such that there are no   
   finite string transformation rules that H can apply to   
   P to derive the behavior of UTM(P) the behavior of UTM(P)   
   is overruled as out-of-scope for Turing machine deciders.   
      
      
   > It isn't much of a test if you require that every question include the   
   > answer as part of the question.   
   >   
   > You don't seem to understand the concept of REQUIREMENTS.   
   >   
   > But then, since you seem to reject the basic concept of Truth and   
   > Correctness, that seems consistant with your logic system.   
      
      
   --   
   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)