XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 12/26/2025 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/26/25 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Really?
>
> And why is that?
>
> Since the DEFINITION of semantics for strings representing programs is
> the operation of that program.
>
> Note, the string represents what it represents to EVERYTHING.
>
That definition has always been less than 100%
precisely accurate even when one takes the vague
term: "represents" with a more precise term of
the art-meaning.
I simply bypass all of that by defining the new
idea of the sequence of steps that a finite string
input instance specifies to its decider instance.
That is a level of precision that no one bothered
to think about for 90 years. That this level of
detail is empirically proven to make an actual
difference conclusively validates it.
> If you decider doesn't understand that representation, then you built
> the wrong string.
>
> It seems you are just making up craps to try to hide your error.
>
> You don't understand that you already said by claiming that P was built
> by the requirements of the proof, that you stipulated this string DID
> MEAN to your decider the algorithm / sequence of steps of the program to
> it.
>
> I guess you are just admitting you have been lying all the time, but
> were to stupid to understand that.
>
>>
>>
>>> 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)
|
