XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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).   
      
   > 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)