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 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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}.   
   >   
   > Right,   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > But since H is (or needs to be) a Turing Machine, the copy of it in P   
   > gives some definite answer,   
      
   P simulated by H cannot possibly receive   
   any return value from H because it remains   
   stuck in recursive simulation until aborted.   
      
   The caller of H cannot possibly be one-and-the-same   
   thing as the argument to H.   
      
   > and thus P has a definite behavior, and thus   
      
   That cannot be derived by H applying finite string   
   transformation rules to its input P.   
      
   > UTM(P) does have a definite behavior, defining the right answer that H   
   > should have given.   
   >   
      
   Yet UTM(P) specifies a different sequence of steps.   
   After the simulation of P has been aborted as opposed   
   to and contrast with before the simulation has been   
   aborted.   
      
   > The fact that H didn't give that answer, just makes H wrong.   
   >   
   > The fact that the claimed "UTM" at H.UTM doesn't match the behavior of   
   > the actual P just says you LIE when you call it a UTM.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is proving you are just a stupid liar.   
   >   
   > LIES do not overrule truth, except in the mind of a pathological liar.   
   >   
   > Note, the behavior of UTM(P) is NOT out of scope of Turing Machine   
   > deciders, just not computable with finite work.   
   >   
   > There is a difference, but that seems to be beyond your self-imposed   
   > ignorant understanding.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> 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)