XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/20/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/20/25 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/20/2025 8:16 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>> On 20/12/2025 23:14, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/20/25 6:09 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>>>> On 20/12/2025 13:32, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/20/25 8:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 19/12/2025 23:01, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite string   
   >>>>>>>> transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I continue to Reject your asymmetric and functionally-loaded   
   >>>>>>> labels for   
   >>>>>>> the classes.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That is just one of the few accurate quotations Olcott makes.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> In ONE of the version of defining Deciders, they are determinators of   
   >>>>>> sentences matching a defined language, and they are to ACCEPT strings   
   >>>>>> that match that grammar, and REJECT statements that fail to meet the   
   >>>>>> grammar.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It's only valid in an elementary corpus of principle where the   
   >>>>> correspondence is drawn such that the terms ACCEPT and REJECT are   
   >>>>> characterised as references into that model and not just ordinary   
   >>>>> English words. The capitalisation is not really enough; double-quotes   
   >>>>> might barely do the trick but without the computational-linguistics   
   >>>>> context it's really just politics. The politics is of nudging the   
   >>>>> population of poorly educated readers into accepting or rejecting   
   >>>>> actual   
   >>>>> programs instead of merely characterising them, whether Olcott is   
   >>>>> doing   
   >>>>> the politics or is being nudged by search results into effecting   
   >>>>> another   
   >>>>> group's politics.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The only clues that the context is CompLang/AI within Olcott's   
   >>>>> statements of principles themselves is the use of the word "string"   
   >>>>> which is highly ambiguous in the context of computation such that any   
   >>>>> formal meaning in logistic philosophy is almost diluted away.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The use of the term "Halt Decider" and "Turing Machine" focus the   
   >>>> context fairly well. Add in his rambling about the Halting Problem, and   
   >>>> it seems clear.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Of course, it does also show is limited understanding, as deciders only   
   >>>> answering Accept or Reject is a somewhat limited space in that field,   
   >>>> but was the initial field which used the term.   
   >>>   
   >>> Do you mean to say that Computation Theory first used "decider" and used   
   >>> it to describe a machine that decides whether to accept a formula as a   
   >>> specimen of the set of formulas described by a given grammar or whether   
   >>> to reject it as specimen of the set?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Do you also mean to say that "decider" is elementary without reference   
   >>> to grammars and specimens of their matches? Don't you agree that it is   
   >>> ambiguous as an term in an elementary principle due to the ordinary   
   >>> meaning of "decider" being to classify a specimen one of two classes (a   
   >>> specimen being as general as even "the current state of the world" and   
   >>> the classes being as correspondingly general as its suitability to   
   >>> respond with one plan or another)?   
   >>>   
   >>> I am concerned that the semantic ambiguity is particularly awkward   
   >>> because the untrained reader will take "decider" in the ordinary sense   
   >>> and take the principle already stated as a philosophical perspective on   
   >>> its nature; the reader will not backtrack to the correct reading soon   
   >>> enough to prevent misunderstanding. They will not settle on the intended   
   >>> reading which is instead to /define/ the term-of-art "decider" vis-a-vis   
   >>> the grammar-matching sense. That will cause the population of readers to   
   >>> adopt acceptance and rejection as classes for the first sense when such   
   >>> specificity is not /correct/ for that sense.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It seems to me that in the broadest computational sense   
   >> that a decider is intended to address decision problems.   
   >   
   > That is one sub-space you can work in.   
   >   
   > The term has also be overloaded as a term-of-art to more general cases,   
   > where the results can be part of a countable-infinite class.   
   >   
      
   That would be a machine that never halts, thus out of scope.   
      
   >>   
   >> In computability theory and computational complexity   
   >> theory, a decision problem is a computational problem   
   >> that can be posed as a yes–no question on a set of input   
   >> values.   
   >>   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem   
   >   
   > Yes, that is for DECISION problems, but deciders can be used for more   
   > than decision problems in the more general parts of the theory.   
   >   
      
   Does this finite string contain: 111?   
   accept or yes for true reject or no for false.   
      
   >>   
   >> Yet can only do so by   
   >> Transforming finite string inputs by finite   
   >> string transformation rules into Boolean Values.   
   >   
   > Right, and that transformation needs to match the Function they are   
   > trying to compute, which might be uncomputable   
   >   
      
   If the function cannot be computed from the input   
   then the input does not contain the value to be computed.   
      
   There is no magical way to compute the behavior   
   of DD simulated by HHH1 from DD simulated by HHH.   
      
   >>   
   >> In the broadest sense my 28 years of primary   
   >> research has focused on undecidability.   
   >   
   > Which in a broader sense isn't just on decision problems. But, if you   
   > want to restrict yourself to just "Decison Problems" that is ok.   
   >   
   > Yes, the Halting Problem IS a decision problem, and thus has only a   
   > binary result.   
   >   
   > A result that can't always be achieved by a finite deterministic   
   > algrotihm in finite steps, and thus the problem is uncomputable.   
   >   
   > Which doesn't make it invalid, just impossible to make a full Halt   
   > Decider that always gives the right answer.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)