[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> I am now down to 15 pages on each system.   
   >>   
   >> It is not that these LLM systems are terribly faulty.   
   >> It is that conventional wisdom about undecidability   
   >> across computer science , math and logic is a foundational   
   >> error.   
   >   
   > Shows how hard you had to work for them to remember your lies.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is proving you are just a liar.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> The problem is you forget to define what it means to be a Halt   
   >>> Decider, or any form of XXXX Decider. Your problem is "Halting" is   
   >>> defined as a property of the actual machine being talked about, which   
   >>> can be expressed in terms of a UTM processing the string   
   >>> representation of it.   
   >>>   
   >>> You then get this crasy idea (which is just a lie) that you can just   
   >>> ignore the behavior of the CORRECT simulation of that input, as shown   
   >>> by what the UTM does, and try to define it's incorrect simulation   
   >>> (since it just stops short based on its own error) as being correct.   
   >>>   
   >>> And then, you show your problem by just refusing to even try to   
   >>> answer with a justification on why your idea is correct.   
   >>>   
   >>> How can your H have "Correctly Simuated" and input that "Correctly   
   >>> Spedifies" the behavior of the machine P, and get the different   
   >>> result of that machine or the machine defined to do the correct   
   >>> simulation, that is, the UTM.   
   >>>   
   >>> Remember, if UTM([x]) doesn't match the behavior of machine X, then   
   >>> it just isn't a UTM.   
   >>>   
   >>> If your problem is that you encoding method can't produce a string   
   >>> that allows for a UTM to exist, then you encoding method is just   
   >>> insufficient, and you doomed yourself from the start, as the criteria   
   >>> for semantic properties ALWAYS goes back to the original machine.   
   >>>   
   >>> All you are doing is proving you don't understand how "requirements"   
   >>> work, as you just try to sweep them under the carpet with your lies.   
   >>>   
   >>> Sorry, all you are doing is proving your stupidity.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)