XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/8/2025 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/8/25 10:16 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/8/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> What did I insufficeintly specify?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Troll   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In other words, you admit defeat.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Not in the least little bit.   
   >>>   
   >>> Then why didn't you answer the question?   
   >>>   
   >>>> The key difference with you as a troll compared to   
   >>>> other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep   
   >>>> understanding of some of these things.   
   >>>   
   >>> So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you just   
   >>> refuse to answer the question.   
   >>>   
   >>> The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied about   
   >>> what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof that you are   
   >>> smarter than me?   
   >>>   
   >>> The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running   
   >>> aways scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The following may not be over your head if you cared   
   >>>> to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the 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 *particular* semantic   
   >>>> or syntactic property.   
   >>>   
   >>> Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the answer   
   >>> to the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I will give you a much simpler example.   
   >> If a universal truth predicate is defined   
   >> to return true when and expression is true   
   >> and false when an expression is false then   
   >> what does it correctly return for this:   
   >> True("What time is it")   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > You have a problem with you definition,   
   >   
   > A Truth Predicate is defined to return True if the input statement is   
   > true, and false for anything else, either a false statement, or a   
   > statement without a truth value.   
   >   
      
   That makes perfect sense to me, what is a   
   halt decider defined this way?   
      
   true if it is determined that it halts else false.   
      
   > Since, "What Time is it" doesn't have a truth value (as it is a   
   > question, not an asserting)   
   >   
   > True("What time is it") is False.   
   >   
   > Again, your problem is you don't know the meaning of the words, and try   
   > to redefine them to match your ignorancd.   
   >   
   > That makes you world just a lie.   
      
   I examine the philosophical foundations of these things   
   that everyone else simply takes as "given".   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)