XPost: sci.math, sci.logic, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/21/2025 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/21/25 7:00 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/21/2025 5:35 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>> Le 22/12/2025 à 00:19, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>> On 6/12/2024 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> When we compute the mapping from the input to H(D,D) this   
   >>>>> must apply a set of finite string transformation rules   
   >>>>> (specified by the semantics of the x86 language) to this input.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The above is my first use applying this term to a halt decider.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> My first documented use of the term   
   >>>> "finite string transformation rules"   
   >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/TFXhleKnHmY/m/lqhDVnvUBgAJ   
   >>>>   
   >>>> *This is the basis for my unique definition of a generic decider*   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   >>>> string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>   
   >>> So you stated a triviality that does not change a iota to the fact   
   >>> that the rest of you claims are wrong.   
   >>>   
   >>> So what?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   >> string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>   
   >> The rest of my claims can be deduced from the above   
   >> first principle and any standard definition of the   
   >> halting problem.   
   >>   
   >> It took me 21.5 years to translate my intuitions into   
   >> this definitional basis. They weren't worth much as   
   >> mere intuitions.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > But Deciders don't need to be based on Strings at all.   
   >   
      
   A sequence of (can't possibly exist because they   
   are infinitely large) registers is essentially   
   a string. Computations involving infinite strings   
   cannot halt.   
      
   > For instance, a Program Decider could be based on representing the   
   > algorithm as a number, just like Godel did with his G statement.   
   >   
   > So your "First Principle" is just a lie.   
   >   
   > So, you just admitted you wasted 21.5 years.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)