XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/12/2025 1:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/12/25 2:35 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/12/2025 12:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/12/25 11:54 AM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/12/2025 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/12/25 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/12/2025 8:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/12/25 9:29 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/12/2025 8:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/11/25 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> Principle 1: Turing machine deciders compute functions   
   >>>>>>>>>> from finite strings to {accept, reject} according to   
   >>>>>>>>>> whether the input has a syntactic property or specifies   
   >>>>>>>>>> a semantic property.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider   
   >>>>>>>>>> report on the direct execution of a Turing machine,   
   >>>>>>>>>> thus category error.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Which is a semantic property of the string, assuming it is a   
   >>>>>>>>> representation of the machine in question,   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Principle 1: Turing machine deciders compute functions   
   >>>>>>>> from finite strings to {accept, reject} according to   
   >>>>>>>> whether the input has a syntactic property or specifies   
   >>>>>>>> a semantic property.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only report on the behavior   
   >>>>>>>> of Turing machines indirectly through the proxy of   
   >>>>>>>> finite strings. *This key detail has been ignored*   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> But, you seem to forget, that said finite string can fully   
   >>>>>>> contain the information needed to recreate that execution   
   >>>>>>> behavior, and thus that behavior is a valid target for a question   
   >>>>>>> to it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Principle 2: We measure the semantic property that   
   >>>>>>>> the finite string specifies by a UTM-based halt   
   >>>>>>>> decider that simulates its input finite string   
   >>>>>>>> step-by-step and watches the execution trace of   
   >>>>>>>> this behavior.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> No, it is measured by the results created by an ACTUAL UTM.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Principle 1: Turing machine deciders compute functions   
   >>>>>> from *finite string inputs* to {accept, reject} according   
   >>>>>> to whether the input has a syntactic property or specifies   
   >>>>>> a semantic property.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Turing machine deciders only report on the behavior   
   >>>>>> of Turing machines indirectly through the proxy of   
   >>>>>> finite string inputs. *This key detail has been ignored*   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But the finite string is a representation of the Turing Machine,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "representation" has always been way too vague of a term.   
   >>>   
   >>> Only because you don't understand what it means. That just shows your   
   >>> stupidity. Do you think the representation "25" is vague? (given the   
   >>> proper context, just like the input to the machine needs to be   
   >>> interpreted in the context of the machine).   
   >>>   
   >>> Your stupidity doesn't make the term and the logic based on it   
   >>> invalid, just your arguements about it.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is the actual sequence of steps specified by the input.   
   >>>   
   >>> Nope, the input is the complete representation of the algorithm of   
   >>> the machine,   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is ONLY the actual sequence of steps encoded by the   
   >>>> finite string AS AN INPUT not in any other context.   
   >>>   
   >>> Right, and those steps are the full set of steps that the machine   
   >>> that has been described WILL do when it is run.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I am trying extra hard to do as Christ said and   
   >> love my enemies/adversaries.   
   >>   
   >   
   > You are doing better. So, why don't you try to actually answer the   
   > questions with actual FACTS and DEFINTIONS from the actual theory, not   
   > you made up idea of what you think they mean.   
   >   
   >> The term-of-the-art describes also has a base meaning   
   >> that is far too vague. It comes for the other technical   
   >> term-of-the-art machine description. Description also   
   >> has a base meaning that is far too vague. The the base   
   >> meaning is so vague abstracts away crucial details.   
   >   
   > But that base meaning doesn't apply, except to your lies.   
   >   
   > Your problem is that you don't understand that terms use the meaning   
   > requried by the context they are used in, and here, "Representation" has   
   > a precise meaning.   
   >   
   > Your faulty idea that some other meaning could be used he, just shows   
   > you don't actually believe in the concept of Semantics.   
   >   
   > Your rejection of, while at the same time depending on, semantics, just   
   > shows how messed up your logic is.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> The input to a Turing machine halt decider has always   
   >> been a finite string that SPECIFIES (in its encoding)   
   >> an exact sequence of steps. The decider only has what   
   >> this finite string encodes as its only basis.   
   >>   
   >   
   > The string does not specify the steps, it specifies the algorthm used to   
   > generate those steps.   
   >   
      
   Counter-factual.   
   The string encoding directly specifies   
   an exact sequence of steps within the   
   model of computation.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 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   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)