XPost: comp.theory   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-10-28, olcott  wrote:   
   > On 10/28/2025 5:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > That's a crazy thing to say. I own a car and it is not an input.   
      
   Note that a car is not an input to some halting deciders, but a   
   non-input to others.   
      
   If X is an input to any halting decider, it is an input to all.   
      
   So for practical purposes, we need no think about non-inputs like cars;   
   they are not interesting and we can confine our thinking strictly to the   
   universe of inputs.   
      
   There are no non-inputs (that are relevant and worth discussing).   
      
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > None-the-less I do have an important discovery in   
      
   "None the less" means "In spite of what you say being correct ...".   
      
   > computer science if you could only bother to pay   
   > complete attention. That you tried to say that my   
   > car does not exist shows a woeful lack of precision   
   > in your choice of words.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)