XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/20/2025 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/20/25 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Why does it need to?   
   >   
      
   Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
      
   They are not accountable for anything else.   
   Both HHH(DD) and HHH1(DD) do this correctly.   
      
      
      
   --   
   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)