XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/20/2025 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/20/25 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/20/2025 2:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/20/25 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/20/2025 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/20/25 2:22 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/20/2025 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/20/25 9:54 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> But it isn't. A Halt Decider needs to compute a result from the   
   >>>>>>> finite string.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Exactly.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite string   
   >>>>>> transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So, you are just admitting you are stupid, as you can't keep the   
   >>>>> terms straight because you mind is to crooked.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The behavior of the finite string that represents this Program P,   
   >>>>> built on your defined program H is computable, as shown by the fact   
   >>>>> that UTM(P) produces the required result of the behavior of running   
   >>>>> this program P.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I was not as clear as possible:   
   >>>> Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   >>>> string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There are no finite string transformation rules   
   >>>> that H can apply to its input P that derive the   
   >>>> behavior of UTM(P).   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> That isn't a valid statement,   
   >>   
   >> Prove that it isn't a valid statement by showing   
   >> the finite string transformations that HHH can   
   >> apply to DD to derive the same behavior as DD   
   >> simulated by HHH1.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Since HHH only does one specific finite string transformation, that   
   > can't be the definition of what determines the answer.   
   >   
      
   Try and figure out how HHH can apply better finite string   
   transformation rules to *ITS ACTUAL INPUT* than DD simulated   
   by HHH. DO this so that it derives the same behavior as   
   DD simulated by HHH1.   
      
   --   
   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)