XPost: sci.logic, alt.philosophy, comp.theory   
   XPost: comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/4/2026 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/4/26 7:13 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >> Computation inherently cannot accomplish   
   >> anything that is not equivalent to finite   
   >> string operations on the actual finite   
   >> string that it actually gets.   
   >>   
   >> UTM(DD) is not equivalent to HHH(DD)   
   >> because DD does not call UTM(DD).   
   >>   
   >> -   
   >   
   > Which just shows you don't understand the concept of REQUIREMENT, and   
   > think wrong answer are ok.   
   >   
      
   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   
      
   I had the answer 21 years ago   
      
   Any yes/no question where both yes and no are the   
   wrong answer is an incorrect question.   
      
   > You confuse the "scope" of what is POSSIBLE, with the scope of what it   
   > an allowed requirement.   
   >   
   > You seem to think it is improper to be able to ask about something that   
   > can't be done, which just means you can't ask a question you don't know   
   > the answer to, as you can't tell if it IS allowed, until you work out   
   > the answer.   
   >   
   > This just shows how screwed up your logic is, and come because of your   
   > fundamental confusion about the meaning of core terms that you chose not   
   > to learn.   
   >   
   > So, all you have shown is that you live in a fantasy world that doesn't   
   > match reality, and thus you search for truth is just logically   
   > impossible, as truth doesn't actually exist in your world.   
   >   
   > The domain of valid questions are *ANY* mapping of an input domain that   
   > can be expressed as finite strings, to outputs that can also be   
   > expressed as finite strings.   
   >   
   > Thus all such question are a form of "transform" from the input to the   
   > output, according to the rules that define that mapping.   
   >   
   > That some of these maps can not be computed by an algorithm is a major   
   > point of computation theory, which has a goal of determine what sort of   
   > questions *CAN* be computed.   
   >   
   > Your criteria is worthless, as you can't ask a question you don't have   
   > the answer to already.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 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-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)