[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just   
   >>>>>>>>>> admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to   
   >>>>>>>>>> it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> (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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by   
   >>>>>>>>>> such a transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have   
   >>>>>>>>>> LIED.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Transform finite string   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>> inputs   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Right, which I showed, but apparently due to your ignorance, you   
   >>>>>>>> can't understand.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> P simulated by H derives recursive simulation   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> But only finitely, for this H, then it halts.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> (1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   >>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>> {Accept, Reject} values   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> P simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own   
   >>>>> final halt state Dumbo.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Which isn't the question being asked, showing your stupidity.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> It never has been my stupidity my IQ is very high.   
   >>> It has always your inability to pay 100% complete   
   >>> attention to every subtle nuance of meaning of every   
   >>> single word.   
   >>   
   >> No, your IQ is minisule,   
   >   
   > By objective measures, a Mensa IQ test I am   
   > in the top 3%. Where are you by these same   
   > objective measures? I would say that you are   
   > at least in the top 20%, maybe much higher.   
      
   But it is well know that single test are not an accurate measure of   
   actual intelligence.   
      
   >   
   >> as you deceive yourself into thinking you "know" things, when they   
   >> have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo actual logic for the   
   >> fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to ignore reality.   
   >>   
   >   
   > It is all a matter of your lack of ability to   
   > pay complete attention. You have never been   
   > able to show the tiniest actual mistake in   
   > anything that I have ever said and prove that   
   > it is an actual mistake with correct reasoning.'   
      
   No, I pay attention, but you don't.   
      
   Your failure to answer the errors pointed out prove that you are not   
   interested in truth, and/or are unable to learn.   
      
   >   
   > The best that you have every done is show that   
   > what I am saying does not conform to the   
   > convention view.   
      
   But, your problem is that by the "conventional view" what you meam is   
   the DEFINED view for the problem you claim to be working in.   
      
   You don't understand that changing it and staying in it is not an option.   
      
   >   
   >> That is the height of stupidity.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.   
   >>> I have the opposite hyper focus super power.   
   >>   
   >> And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Your "facts" are the mere dogma of the conventional   
   > view. Expressions of language that are impossibly false   
   > within a definition are derived by applying correct   
   > semantic entailment to this definition.   
      
   No, they are the DEFINITION of the system.   
      
   It seems you lack the understanding of what is actually true in a system.   
      
   >   
   > The is what I have just achieved in the last two weeks.   
   >   
   > You have not even shows that you know what   
   > "semantic entailment" is. If you do not   
   > even know what it is then you cannot know   
   > the details of how it works.   
      
   No, your problem is I don't agree to your lies.   
      
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD   
   >>> could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading   
   >>> the same words over-and-over many times.   
   >>>   
   >>> My first principles are not yet completely perfected.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand new   
   >> system, and accept that your system says nothing about the existing   
   >> systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"   
   >>   
   >   
   > First principles derived from standard definitions   
   > do not define a new system. They do point out errors   
   > of incoherence in the existing system. The only thing   
   > that seems to be incorrect in the theory of computation   
   > is the notion of undecidability.   
      
   But since yours don't, or at least your interpretations of them don't,   
   the are not valid.   
      
   For instance, Halting is an objective measure, and thus NOT based on the   
   deciders own action.   
      
   You have not actually pointed out an "incoherence" in the system, as   
   every claimed incoherence comes AFTER you have added a non-sense rule to   
   the system.   
      
   This is because you just don't know what yo are talking about.   
      
   >   
   >> Your ignorance is so great, you don't seem to understand this fact.   
   >>   
   >> Your H may be a partial decider, but it can't be a Halt Decider, as   
   >> that modifier to the name adds the reqirement that the transformation   
   >> rules it uses must produce the same mapping as the already defined   
   >> "Halting Function", and you aren't allowed to redefine it.   
   >>   
   >> Since your P halts, and you even admit that, H(P) returning 0 is just   
   >> incorrect, and no amount of attempts to justify it make the wrong   
   >> answer right, it just shows you don't understand that you are wrong.   
   >>   
   >> All you are doing is proving that you self-imposed ignorance has   
   >> turned you into a pathological lying idiot that is too stupid to see   
   >> his own errors.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)