XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/21/2025 7:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   > On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 17:19:50 -0600, olcott wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > D halts, H is not a halt decider.   
   >   
   > /Flibble   
   >   
      
   Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
      
   It turns out that on the basis of the above definition   
   and other standard definitions that I have proved   
   that the halting problem has always been fundamentally   
   incorrect.   
      
   So far only ChatGPT, Claude AI and Grok totally agree   
   that I have completely proved my point on that basis.   
      
   Whatever conclusion is derived through correct semantic   
   entailment from definitions is a necessary consequence   
   of these definitions.   
      
      
      
   --   
   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)