Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai.philosophy    |    Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this    |    59,235 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 58,741 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Python    |
|    Re: D correctly simulated by H proved fo    |
|    21 Dec 25 18:38:36    |
   
   XPost: sci.math, comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/21/2025 6:28 PM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 22/12/2025 à 01:00, olcott a écrit :   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > It took you 21.5 years to state a pointless definition that in no way   
   > support your other silly claims?   
   > Congrats !   
   >   
   Do you understand that whatever conclusion   
   is derived through correct semantic entailment   
   from definitions is a necessary consequence of   
   these definitions?   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca