XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/20/2025 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/20/25 6:45 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/20/2025 5:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/20/25 6:25 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/20/2025 4:57 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>>>> On 20/12/2025 13:12, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/20/2025 7:01 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 not any sort of actual rebuttal   
   >>>>>> it is merely a dogmatic assertion. Actual   
   >>>>>> rebuttals (even incorrect ones) require reasoning.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I gave it to you before, I think.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is categorically impossible for this to be   
   >>>> incorrect:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   >>>> string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
   >>>> They are not accountable for anything else.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> No, you are categorically incorrect. While they may only USE a finite   
   >>> string transformation, they are accoutable to the function they are   
   >>> supposed to be computing.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> They cannot be held accountable for any behavior   
   >> outside the scope of deciders as I have carefully   
   >> defined them. They cannot be required to bake   
   >> birthday cakes or use any psychic ability.   
   >>   
   >> All that they can be required to do is transform   
   >> input finite strings into values.   
   >>   
   >   
   > And the scope of a decider is to attempt to compute the specified   
   > mapping of input to output.   
   >   
      
   Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
      
   The input must somehow encode the value to be computed.   
   If it does not then the requirement is incorrect.   
      
   > Since the mapping of a description of a Machine to whether that machine   
   > halts when run is a fully defined function/mapping, it is in scope for a   
   > decider.   
   >   
      
   You keep dodging this question.   
   By what correct finite string transformation rule   
   can HHH(DD) transform its input into the behavior   
   of DD simulated by HHH1?   
      
   > It just can't be done, as that mapping is uncomputable, but that doesn't   
   > put it out of scope.   
   >   
      
   Requiring to compute a mapping that does not exist   
   puts it out of scope.   
      
   > Now, part of your problem is you don't understand that your decider has   
   > a definite algorithm, and thus has a defined output for every input, and   
   > that is built on determinism, and not rules like "get the right answer".   
   >   
      
   I have had fully operational software for more than three years.   
      
   > Thus, this specific P CAN determine the results your SPECIFIC H will   
   > give with itself as the input, and then do the opposite.   
   >   
      
   If there is no mapping from the input to the required   
   value then the requirement is incorrect because it is   
   requires behavior that is out-of-scope for computation.   
      
   Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
   Requiring them to do more than that is an incorrect   
   requirement.   
      
   When-so-ever there are no finite string transformations   
   from an input into a required value the requirement is   
   out-of-scope for computation.   
      
   > That make that H wrong, it doesn't make the answer a contradiction.   
   >   
   > It only makes the assumption that the decider as a Halt Decider an error.   
      
      
   --   
   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)