XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/27/2025 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/27/25 10:01 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/27/2025 8:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/27/25 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/27/2025 7:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/27/25 8:20 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/27/2025 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/26/25 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/26/2025 10:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/26/25 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Deciders are a pure function of their inputs   
   >>>>>>>>>> proving that H(P)==0 is correct and the requirement   
   >>>>>>>>>> is not a pure function of the input to H(P)   
   >>>>>>>>>> is an incorrect requirement within the definition:   
   >>>>>>>>>> *Deciders are a pure function of their inputs*   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Doesn't follow.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> That H generates a 0 result with the input P only says that is   
   >>>>>>>>> what H computes.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> H reports on the actual behavior that its   
   >>>>>>>> actual finite string input actually specifies   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Then you admit your string was wrong for the question that P was   
   >>>>>>> supposed to make, and thus you LIED that you followed the proof.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yes, but to be a HALT deciders, that mapping needs to match the   
   >>>>>>> HALT function,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That mapping does not exist in the input to H(P)   
   >>>>>> thus it is an incorrect question for H(P).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Sure it does, or your H just doesn't support a sufficient language.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Show the mapping that H computes on the basis of the   
   >>>> semantics of C to the behavior of UTM(P).   
   >>>   
   >>> It doesn't, that is why it is wrong.   
   >>>   
   >>> H only computes the mapping that it was programed with, and if that   
   >>> isn't the right mapping, it is just wrong.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> H is required to compute a mapping that does not exist.   
   >   
   > The MAPPING EXISTS.   
   >   
   > The part it can't compute is [P] -> HALTING, because you defined it to   
   > map that input to non-halting.   
   >   
   > You are just showing you are stupid.   
   >   
   >> There are no finite string transformation rules from   
   >> the input to H(P) to the behavior of UTM(P) that H can   
   >> possibly apply to P.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Sure there are,   
   >   
      
   You know that it is categorically impossible   
   for any decider H to correctly report on the   
   behavior of input P that does the opposite of   
   whatever H reports.   
      
      
   --   
   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)