XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/31/2025 11:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/31/25 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/31/2025 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/30/25 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that   
   >>>> computes a total function D :  Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},   
   >>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the   
   >>>> input alphabet. That is:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,   
   >>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Is simplified to this barest essence across all models of computation   
   >>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Anything that cannot be derived from actual finite string   
   >>>> inputs is not computable and outside the scope of computation.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> But since the Halting status of the machine that finite string IS   
   >>> deriveed from that machine, by just running that machine, or giving   
   >>> it to the appropriate UTM, you are just showing that Halting is a   
   >>> valid question.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is also uncomputable, as has been proven.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> There are no finite string transformations that HHH(DD)   
   >> can apply to its input that derive the behavior of UTM(DD).   
   >   
   >   
   > But that is a different, and non-sense standard.   
   >   
   > There is only ONE transform that HHH does, at it is just wrong.   
   >   
   > You seem to forget that HHH is a specific decider while the criteria   
   > needs to be an objective criteria.   
   >   
      
   Across ChatGPT, Claude AI, Gemini and Grok within   
   fifty different conversations they all always   
   agreed that the halting problem counter-example   
   input is analogous to the Liar Paradox thus   
   essentially the requirement of a correct answer   
   to an incorrect question.   
      
   I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004   
      
   function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):   
       if YouSayItHalts () then   
           while true do {}   
        else   
           return false;   
      
   Does this program Halt?   
      
   (Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered   
     translated to Boolean as the function's input   
     parameter)   
      
   Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!   
      
   https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/Hs78nMN6QZE/m/ID2rxwo__yQJ   
   When you yourself say YES you are wrong   
   When you yourself say  NO you are wrong   
      
   Therefore the halting problem counter example input   
   is a yes/no question lacking a correct yes/no answer.   
      
   > The criteria is does the mapping that this HHH does compute match the   
   > required one, which is what UTM(DD) shows.   
   >   
   > The fact that HHH doesn't do that makes it wrong.   
   >   
   > The fact that we can make a similar input from any possible decider   
   > makes the problem uncomputable.   
   >   
   > The fact you refuse to accept this makes you stupid.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> There are finite string transformations that HHH(DD)   
   >> can apply to its input that derive the behavior that   
   >> the input to HHH(DD) specifies.   
   >   
   > No, there is only ONE transform that it DOES apply.   
   >   
   > But that does not specify the meaning of the string, as it was SUPPOSED   
   > TO represent that behavior of the program DD.   
   >   
   > Once you lable your HHH as a Halt Decider, the semantic of its input are   
   > specified, and NOT based on what it actualy does, but on what it was   
   > claiming to be.   
   >   
   > Now, part of your problem is you never actually formed the right input   
   > string, as you never setup your program correctly, just showing your   
   > stupidity and ignorance.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> No decider is ever accountable to report on any behavior   
   >> other than the actual behavior that its actual finite   
   >> string input actually specifies. When the halting problem   
   >> requires more than that it requires too much.   
   >   
   > But the actual behavior that its actual finte string repesents *IS* the   
   > behavior of the machine it describes, or you are just admitting you   
   > started with a lie that DD calling HHH(DD) is according to the proof   
   > program, as that *IS* the meaning its passed string must represent.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is admitting you are just a stupid liar.   
   >   
   > It seems you just don't understand the concept of "Requirments" and thus   
   > have major errors in your definiton of things like "Truth"   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> Your problem is you seem to not understand the requirement that a   
   >>> decider needs to CORRECTLY compute the function it is supposed to be   
   >>> computing, because you just don't understand the nature of truth, and   
   >>> think it can be just redefined.   
   >>>   
   >>> As a simile, your logic says a persian cat can be entered into the   
   >>> Westminster Dog show and win best of breed, just by saying it is a dog.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)