XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/12/2025 3:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/12/25 3:55 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/12/2025 1:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/12/25 2:35 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Where do you get that? More of your zero-principle logic?   
   >   
   > If it was, how can you say your C code is a valid input? that doesn't   
   > specify what steps happen, it specifies the logic used to generate the   
   > steps.   
   >   
      
   It is a string of bytes that specifies an   
   exact sequence of steps within a 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
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)