XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/20/2025 8:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/20/25 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/20/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 20/12/2025 03:27, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite   
   >>>> string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}   
   >>>>   
   >>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCDTF.pdf   
   >>>   
   >>> As there are no halt deciders they don't work at all.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The above defines the generic notion of decider.   
   >> There are deciders.   
   >>   
   >   
   > But not Halt Deciders.   
   >   
      
   When a halt decider is defined to exceed what   
   generic deciders can do then this definition   
   is incorrect.   
      
   A halt decider is nothing more than a specialized   
   decider. It can only make its decision on the basis   
   of finite string transformation rules.   
      
   > Your problem is you don't understand about Rules and Requirements,   
   > because, you don't understand what TRUTH is because you are just a   
   > pathological liar.   
   >   
   > You think it is valid to call things as they are not and assume that   
   > makes it so.   
   >   
   > That just shows you don't understand how logic works, and thus what   
   > truth is,   
      
      
   --   
   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)