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 58,748 of 59,235 |
| olcott to Richard Damon |
| Re: The primary first principle of all T |
| 21 Dec 25 21:19:40 |
XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 12/21/2025 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/21/25 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Which is just a factual error because you don't understand what the
> terms mean.
>
> They can only DO what can be done by their computations restrictions.
>
> But the requirements are not limited by their ability, and it is
> acknowledge that we can make requirements that can not be meet.
>
> In fact, part of the goal of the field is to try to classify which types
> of problems CAN be solved, and which can not.
>
> Not understanding the purpose of the field means you are making
> fundamentally wrong assumptions.
>
I spent 22 years on the notion of undecidability.
Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by
applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings
|
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca