XPost: comp.theory   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:   
   > On 10/28/2025 4:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 10/28/2025 2:37 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/28/2025 11:35 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Deciders only compute a mapping from their actual   
   >>>>>>> inputs. Computing the mapping from non-inputs is   
   >>>>>>> outside of the scope of Turing machines.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Calculating the halting of certain inputs is indeed impossible   
   >>>>>> for some halting algorithms.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Not just impossible outside of the scope of every Turing machine.   
   >>>>> Its the same kind of thing as requiring the purely mental object   
   >>>>> of a Turing machine to bake a birthday cake.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It simply isn't. Inputs that are not correctly solvable by some   
   >>>> deciders are decided by some others.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> THIS INPUT IS SOLVABLE   
   >>> THE NON-INPUT IS OUT-OF-SCOPE   
   >>>   
   >>> DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT 10,000   
   >>> TIME BEFORE YOU NOTICE THAT I EVER SAID IT ONCE?   
   >>   
   >> You have not said anything substantial about this even once.   
   >   
   > Do you understand that deciders only report on their inputs?   
      
   I understand that there only exist inputs.   
      
   Do you understand that we can design a description language for   
   Turing Machines in which any sequence of 1's and 0's is   
   valid?   
      
   Then all possible bit strings are valid inputs, making it   
   redundant to emphasize that deciders only operate on inputs.   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)