XPost: sci.math, comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/21/2025 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/21/25 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/21/2025 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/21/25 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/21/2025 8:25 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>>>> Le 22/12/2025 à 03:08, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> LLMs are a deadly poison for cranks of your kind. Even OpenAI   
   >>>>> recognized this.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> *Not in this specific case*   
   >>>> Whatever conclusion is derived through correct   
   >>>> semantic entailment from definitions is a necessary   
   >>>> consequence of these definitions.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The only issue that I have had with them is:   
   >>>> (a) They have to be reminded to pay closer attention   
   >>>> to exactly what was said.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (b) To only form conclusions that are semantically   
   >>>> entailed from definitions.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Not when the definitions are lies.   
   >>>   
   >>> You need to start from CORRECT definitions, and you don't get to   
   >>> change the definitions in the context you are trying to talk about.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   >> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>   
   >> The theory of computation is fine, it is only   
   >> the notion of undecidability that is incorrect.   
   >>   
   >   
   > And why is that?   
   >   
      
   You will see in the other thread.   
      
   --   
   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)