XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/17/2025 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-16 16:15:43 +0000, olcott said:   
   >   
   >> On 11/16/2025 9:39 AM, joes wrote:   
   >>> Am Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:12:55 -0600 schrieb olcott:   
   >>>   
   >>>> The Program under test and test program are separate.   
   >>>   
   >>> D includes H.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The question is not:   
   >> Can H reach its own final halt state?   
   >> The question is:   
   >> Can D simulated by H reach its simulated final halt state?   
   >   
   > If the question H is designed to answer is either one the   
   > H is not a halt decider. The question a halt decider would   
   > answer is:   
   > Does D halt if fully executed?   
   >   
      
   Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from   
   their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject   
   state on the basis that this [finite string] input   
   specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic   
   property.   
      
   That the information that HHH is required to report   
   on simply is not contained in its input is what makes   
   the requirements wrong.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)