XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/26/2025 11:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/26/25 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/26/2025 10:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/26/25 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/26/2025 9:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/26/25 8:54 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/26/2025 6:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/25/25 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/25/2025 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/25/25 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 12/25/2025 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/25/25 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Three different LLMs have been totally convinced   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> a total of 50 times, you just don't understand.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> LLM LIE, so are not reliable sources.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> *Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth*   
   >>>>>>>>>> "Any result that cannot be derived as a pure function   
   >>>>>>>>>>   of finite strings is uncomputable."   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> But Halting *IS* a "pure function of finite strings"   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> And it is uncomputable   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Not exactly. Usually ⟨M⟩ simulated by H == UTM(⟨M⟩)   
   >>>>>>>> Sometimes ⟨M⟩ simulated by H != UTM(⟨M⟩)   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Only if H doesn't CORRECTLY simulate (M).   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Correctly simulated is defined by the semantics   
   >>>>>> of C applied to the finite string input for   
   >>>>>> the N steps until H sees the repeating pattern.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So, how does that differ from what the program actually does?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ah great this is the first time that you didn't   
   >>>> just dodge that out of hundreds of times.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When-so-ever an input finite string ⟨M⟩ does not   
   >>>> cheat and call its own decider the input finite   
   >>>> string to H(⟨M⟩) is a valid proxy for UTM(⟨M⟩).   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> So, you didn't answer the question.   
   >>>   
   >>> How does H CORRECTLY simulate the input and get a different result   
   >>> from what the program does?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The finite string P  H   
   >> is not a valid proxy to UTM(P).   
   >   
   > So, you don't understand that a string is a string and you can copy it   
   > elsewhere?   
   >   
      
   There is a key semantic difference between a finite   
   string that describes behavior and the exact sequence   
   of steps that a finite string input specifies to a   
   specific instance of a decider.   
      
      
   > WHy isn't the string P you gave as an input to H not a valid proxy for   
   > the input to be given to UTM?   
   >   
   > It seems like you just want to prohibit the meaning it must have to make   
   > your point, which just shows you don't know what you are talking about.   
   >   
   > If the string P you gave to H wasn't a valid proxy for the machine P,   
   > then you have just been lying about following the proof for all these   
   > years.   
   >   
   > Did you not understand that you had to be truthful to H (and thus to   
   > UTM) about the program P?   
   >   
   > Of course, that IS part of your problem, as you try to pass off an   
   > invalid string, as you want to omit the algoritm of H from it, which   
   > just shows that you never knew what you were talking about.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> Yes, the finite string (M) *IS* a valid proxy for M, and UTM((M))   
   >>> shows what that string says, EVEN IF IT INCLUDES IT CALLING a copy of H.   
   >>>   
   >>> Why isn't it?   
   >>>   
   >>> How is H's DIFFERENT simulation "Correct"?   
   >>>   
   >>> Are you saying your system can't express this construction to H?   
   >>>   
   >>> If so, that just means your H fails to be able to be asked the   
   >>> question, and proves itself in error.   
   >>>   
   >>> All you are doing is admitting you can't do what you claim.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)