XPost: comp.theory   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-11-19, olcott  wrote:   
   > On 11/19/2025 9:51 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >> On 17/11/2025 23:02, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Make sure that you do not examine the foundational   
   >>> assumptions of computation because almost no one   
   >>> here even knows what the term [foundational assumptions]   
   >>> even means and this is too embarrassing for them.   
   >>   
   >> That's philosophy, not comp. theory!   
   >>   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Yet, you have freshly repeated the claim just today or yesterday that   
   that HHH1(DD) -> 1 and HHH(DD) -> 0 are both correct.   
      
   DD is the same input: one finite machine description with a set of   
   properties that are all the same from the perspective of any function   
   which receives it. Properties like a single halting status.   
      
   You've not given anything but a handwaving argument in support   
   of your belief that DD can specify two (or more?) behaviors,   
   based on which decider is "looking" at it.   
      
   The most formal activity you have engaged in in connection   
   with proving the above is the construction of the x86utm   
   and the Halt7.c test cases.   
      
   But it has been shown that those are wrong; the simulation   
   abandoned by HHH(DD) has a continuation halts.   
      
   Yet you cling to the hand-waving arguments, and appeals to   
   pop-philosophical esthetics.   
      
   --   
   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)