XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/25/2025 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/25/25 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/25/2025 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/25/25 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/25/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/694dcae3-a210-8011-b12f-a74007045a4a   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Any result that cannot be derived as a pure function   
   >>>>   of finite strings is uncomputable."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Deciders are not accountable for anything that   
   >>>> is not a pure function of their actual inputs.   
   >>>   
   >>> And the "Halting Function" *IS* a "Pure Function" of its input, so   
   >>> you are agreeing that your decider are accountable to being asked   
   >>> about the Halting of theinput.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is categorically impossible for there to   
   >>>> be a better measure of the actual behavior   
   >>>> that the actual input actually specifies   
   >>>> to H(P) that H computes as a pure function   
   >>>> of its actual input than P simulated by H.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> WRONG, and that just shows how stupid you are.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> What is your actual reasoning to show that I am incorrect?   
   >> Calling be stupid seems to indicate that you are baffled.   
   >> It certainly does not indicate that I am incorrect.   
   >   
   > Because the measure is DEFINED by the problem.   
   >   
      
   Three different LLMs have been totally convinced   
   a total of 50 times, you just don't understand.   
      
   > I guess you don't know what the words "the halting problem is the   
   > problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer   
   > program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or   
   > continue to run forever."   
   >   
   > Or what it means to "Specify to sequence of steps the program will   
   > perform"?   
   >   
   > If "the behavior specified by the input" doesn't match the question   
   > being asked, something YOU did was wrong, as you claim you followed the   
   > proof, but P is DEFINED to as H about the behavior of P when run,   
   >   
   > So, if that isn't the meaning of the string, you just admitted to lying.   
   >   
   > Your problem is it seems that "requirements" are just a foreign concept   
   > to you, which is probably why you think it is ok for you to be watching   
   > kiddie porn, as those sorts of rules don't apply to you.   
   >   
   > Sorry, they DO, and all you are proving is that you are just a   
   > pathological liar that can't know what is right or wrong.   
   >   
   > You are just proving that your words mean nothing, and thus you logic   
   > can;t be based on semantics, as semantcis requires you to have properly   
   > defined meaning.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> That CAN'T be the measure for a Halt Decider.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> What is you logic to make this claim?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Already fully provided and you ignored it or   
   >> it was over-your-head. I don't think it was   
   >> over-your-head. You do seem to have all the   
   >> basic ideas correctly.   
   >>   
   >>> It seems to just come out of your ignorance.   
   >>>   
   >>> Sorry, but you have PROVES that you presumptions are just bad, and   
   >>> that you are just a pathological liar.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)