XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.software-eng   
   XPost: sci.math   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 11/01/2026 16:23, olcott wrote:   
   > On 1/11/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> On 10/01/2026 17:47, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 1/10/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> On 09/01/2026 17:52, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/9/2026 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 08/01/2026 16:22, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/8/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 07/01/2026 13:54, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2026 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 07/01/2026 06:44, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> The counter-example input to requires more than   
   >>>>>>>>>>> can be derived from finite string transformation   
   >>>>>>>>>>> rules applied to this specific input thus the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem requires too much.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> In a sense the halting problem asks too much: the problem is   
   >>>>>>>>>> proven to   
   >>>>>>>>>> be unsolvable. In another sense it asks too little: usually we   
   >>>>>>>>>> want to   
   >>>>>>>>>> know whether a method halts on every input, not just one.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Although the halting problem is unsolvable, there are partial   
   >>>>>>>>>> solutions   
   >>>>>>>>>> to the halting problem. In particular, every counter-example   
   >>>>>>>>>> to the   
   >>>>>>>>>> full solution is correctly solved by some partial deciders.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> *if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Depends on whether the word "truth" is interpeted in the standard   
   >>>>>>>> sense or in Olcott's sense.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Undecidability is misconception. Self-contradictory   
   >>>>>>> expressions are correctly rejected as semantically   
   >>>>>>> incoherent thus form no undecidability or incompleteness.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The misconception is yours. No expression in the language of the   
   >>>>>> first   
   >>>>>> order group theory is self-contradictory. But the first order goupr   
   >>>>>> theory is incomplete: it is impossible to prove that AB = BA is true   
   >>>>>> for every A and every B but it is also impossible to prove that AB   
   >>>>>> = BA   
   >>>>>> is false for some A and some B.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> When a required result cannot be derived by applying   
   >>>>> finite string transformation rules to actual finite   
   >>>>> string inputs, then the required result exceeds the   
   >>>>> scope of computation and must be rejected as an   
   >>>>> incorrect requirement.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, that does not follow. If a required result cannot be derived by   
   >>>> appying a finite string transformation then the it it is uncomputable.   
   >>>   
   >>> Right. Outside the scope of computation. Requiring anything   
   >>> outside the scope of computation is an incorrect requirement.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Of course, it one can prove that the required result is not computable   
   >>>> then that helps to avoid wasting effort to try the impossible. The   
   >>>> situation is worse if it is not known that the required result is not   
   >>>> computable.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That something is not computable does not mean that there is anyting   
   >>>> "incorrect" in the requirement.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes it certainly does. Requiring the impossible is always an error.   
   >>   
   >> It is a perfectly valid question to ask whther a particular reuqirement   
   >> is satisfiable.   
   >   
   > Any yes/no question lacking a correct yes/no answer   
   > is an incorrect question that must be rejected on   
   > that basis.   
      
   Irrelevant. The question whether a particular requirement is satisfiable   
   does have an answer that is either "yes" or "no". In some ases it is   
   not known whether it is "yes" or "no" and there may be no known way to   
   find out be even then either "yes" or "no" is the correct answer.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)