XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/21/2025 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/21/25 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/21/2025 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/21/25 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/21/2025 6:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/21/25 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/21/2025 6:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/21/25 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/21/2025 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/21/25 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/2025 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/2025 5:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/2025 7:32 AM, 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was not a quotation. I had to piece that together   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> myself from numerous sources. It took me 22 years to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee, that should be something you could have found in just   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> a few minutes of searching. It is basic material in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory in the introductory material on Deciders.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> They never ever phrase it exactly that way.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Look for yourself.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Really? With a very quick search I get to:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> https://sites.radford.edu/~nokie/classes/420/Chap3-Langs.html   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> None say: "finite string transformation rules"   
   >>>>>>>>>> None say: "finite string transformation rules"   
   >>>>>>>>>> None say: "finite string transformation rules"   
   >>>>>>>>>> None say: "finite string transformation rules"   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Rigth, because that is the part you have wrong.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Deciders don't need to be based on "Finite String   
   >>>>>>>>> Transformation Rules".   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Try to prove this. What counter-example do you have?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> As I have said, a Decider built on a RASP machine has no strings   
   >>>>>>> at all, just a list of Numbers.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And even if you have a string based decider, just calling them   
   >>>>>>> "Transformation Rules" leaves too much ambiquity, as we can   
   >>>>>>> verbally describe rules that can not actually be computed, as you   
   >>>>>>> don't limit the "atoms" that make up your transformations.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> This, it excludes cases that should be allowed, and allows things   
   >>>>>>> that should be exluded, and thus is a perfectly wrong definition.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I need the simplest possible essence or I will   
   >>>>>> never be understood.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You need to start for FACTS or you will never be correct.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It seems you logic says Truth is optional.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   >>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Nope. Starting with your error, and you DOOM your logic.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What is the error with that one?   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> That they are based on some arbitrary finite string transformation   
   >>> rules. There are very specific requirements to the transformations   
   >>> that they can do.   
   >>   
   >> I never said arbitrary. I am only wrong   
   >> if they are sometimes not based on any   
   >> finite string transformation rules at all.   
   >>   
   >   
   > You didn't restrict it, so you left it arbitary.   
   >   
      
   Oh I see what you mean.   
   I never said anything about their intended purpose.   
   This was intentional.   
      
   If any intended purpose cannot be achieved by   
   applying finite string transformations to input   
   finite strings then the intended purpose is   
   outside of the scope of computation.   
      
   This is the entire essence of my 22 years of work   
   on the halting problem.   
      
   > The "definition" of something needs to actualy define what it is.   
   >   
   > Defining a Playground ball as "A sphere" is incorect, as it allows many   
   > things that are not playground balls to be included.   
   >   
   > And, Turing Machines are not describe in terms of "String   
   > Transformations" except in very specific terms, so the definition is   
   > just incorrect.   
      
      
   --   
   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)