XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/23/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/23/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/23/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/23/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that   
   >>>>>>>>> computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},   
   >>>>>>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the   
   >>>>>>>>> input alphabet. That is:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> 1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,   
   >>>>>>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> 2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated   
   >>>>>>>>> according to one of two types of properties:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>    (a) Syntactic property: a property of the input   
   >>>>>>>>>    string itself, such as containing a particular   
   >>>>>>>>>    substring or satisfying a structural pattern.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>    (b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of   
   >>>>>>>>>    computational steps explicitly encoded by the input   
   >>>>>>>>>    string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself   
   >>>>>>>>>    specifies when interpreted as a machine description.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> (b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset   
   >>>>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions   
   >>>>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly   
   >>>>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the   
   >>>>>>>> input itself specifies.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it to   
   >>>>>>> describe P?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give it   
   >>>>>>> the right encoding.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The common meaning of the term "describe" does   
   >>>>>> not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But the term-of-art does.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Because is does not directly say that it specifies   
   >>>> an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field   
   >>>> of the theory of computation totally miss the very   
   >>>> subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, that is the meaning of describe as the term-of-art.   
   >>>   
   >>> It needs to be a complete description of the algorithm used by the   
   >>> machine, and that DOES describe, when combined with the input to that   
   >>> machine, the exact sequence of steps the machine will do.   
   >>>   
   >>> Did you not claim that the x86 instructions of a program are a   
   >>> suitable encoding for the input?   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> (b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset   
   >>>>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions   
   >>>>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly   
   >>>>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the   
   >>>>>> input itself specifies.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word   
   >>>>>> is required.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine   
   >>>>> encoded (which is another term for describing) is a valid criteria   
   >>>>> that a decider must be able to be asked.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Nope, where does it say that?   
   >>>   
   >>> It says the computational steps encoded in the input string. That   
   >>> would be the UTM processing of the string.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Maybe you fundamentally cannot pay very close   
   >> attention. On the other hand   
   >>   
   >> Individuals with Asperger syndrome often   
   >> exhibit exceptional focus and persistence   
   >> when pursuing their interests or tasks.   
   >>   
   >> Which has not been renamed to a kind of   
   >> attention deficit by the morons in charge.   
   >>   
   >> I have hyper focused attention you have lack of   
   >> sufficient attention.   
   >   
   > No, you are just ignoring the fact that you have been showen to be   
   > wrong, and not figuring out how to respond, just fall back to your   
   > normal proceedure of ignoring your error and repeating your false claim.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> The key solution for this (if one exists) is for   
   >> you to read this over and over again until you   
   >> can directly see that nothing like the idea of   
   >> a UTM or direct execution is ever mentioned or   
   >> implied.   
   >>   
   >> A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that   
   >> computes a total function D :  Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},   
   >> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the   
   >> input alphabet. That is:   
   >>   
   >> 1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,   
   >> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.   
   >>   
   >> 2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated   
   >> according to one of two types of properties:   
   >>   
   >> (a) Syntactic property: a property of the input   
   >> string itself, such as containing a particular   
   >> substring or satisfying a structural pattern.   
   >>   
   >> (b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of   
   >> computational steps explicitly encoded by the input   
   >> string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself   
   >> specifies when interpreted as a machine description.   
   >>   
   >> The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property   
   >> holds for the input and Reject otherwise.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something wrong, just   
   > repeated the statement which I showed you what it means.   
   >   
      
   Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.   
      
   (1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   {Accept, Reject} values.   
      
   (2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying   
   finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs   
   is outside of the scope of computation.   
      
      
      
   --   
   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)