XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/8/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > No, not "DETERMINED", but *IF* it halts.   
   >   
      
   True(X) if X is determined to be True,   
   false if false, gibberish or paradox.   
      
   > Just like the True predicate isn't asking if we can prove the statement,   
   > just if it *is* true,   
      
   On what basis? (I spent 28 years on this).   
      
   > and true can be different then proven. That truth   
   > can be based on an infinite sequence of inferences, as that *IS* how   
   > truth is defined.   
   >   
   > The program DD() you have defined does halt because your HHH you have   
   > defined returns 0 when HHH(DD) is called.   
   >   
   > The fact that HHH can't determine this doesn't change the correct   
   > answer, it just makes HHH wrong.   
   >   
   > Truth is not subjective, but objective.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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".   
   >>   
   >   
   > But don't understand what you are talking about.   
   >   
      
   Like I said everyone here thinks that   
   examining philosophical foundations is nuts.   
      
   These foundations are already established and   
   been infallibly determined to be perfect.   
      
   > Since you fundamentally change the meaning of some of the words, nothing   
   > you "think up" is actually applicable.   
   >   
   > This come, in part, because you are just ignorant of many basic facts   
   > about how logic works.   
      
      
   --   
   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)