[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> (1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   >> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>   
   >> Here is the same thing more formally and less clearly.   
   >>   
   >> Definition: Turing-Machine Decider D   
   >>   
   >> A Turing-machine decider D is a Turing machine that computes   
   >> a total function D : Σ* → {Accept, Reject}. That is:   
   >>   
   >> 1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ*, D   
   >> halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> For instance, Halting is an objective measure, and thus NOT based on   
   >>> the deciders own action.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Not according to the above two definitions.   
   >   
   > But the above doesn't define what an XXX Decider is.   
      
   *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
      
   This is the part that you are having great difficulty   
   understanding.   
      
   >  Note, it talks   
   > NOTHING about what makes a given decider "correct" (a word you don't   
   > seem to understand)   
   >   
   > Yes, your H is a decider (if you fix it to always answer), but it isn't   
   > a HALT decider though, as its computed results do not match th Halting   
   > function, which IS a valid function to ask about per the definition of a   
   > Semantic Property.   
   >   
   > You are just showing your ignorance of the langague.   
   >   
   > I guess you think you can submit your Persan Cat into the Westminister   
   > Dog Show as that show is for trained animals.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)