XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/12/2025 3:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/12/25 6:02 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/12/2025 4:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/12/25 5:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/12/2025 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/12/25 5:07 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/12/2025 3:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/12/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> HOW??? Your input isn't that, so I guess you are just admitting   
   >>>>>>> you are just a liar.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If it is, then how is C code or x86 instrutions code a valid   
   >>>>>>> input. Those are not a "exact sequence of steps" that the machine   
   >>>>>>> goes through.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You must keep forgetting the details that   
   >>>>>> I have already provided.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Then remind me, because it seems you are just showing that you   
   >>>>> logic is broken.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you can't remind me then it seems that the   
   >>>> issue is you own lack of attention span. Feel   
   >>>> free to go back through what I said. If you   
   >>>> can't even go back through what I said then it   
   >>>> is definitely your own attention span.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> But I DO repeat my reasoning,   
   >> If you can't remind me what I said even by   
   >> going back through my messages then the issue   
   >> is your attention span and nothing else.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > In other words, you are admitting you never said it, as you would   
   > normally love to prove me wrong,   
   >   
   > Also, apparently you are convinced there is a teapot in the asteroid   
   > belt, as no one has proven it isn't there.   
   >   
   > Sorry, you are just proving that you can't answer the basic question of   
   > why your input doesn't meet the rules you now want to require of the input.   
   >   
   > The only reason is you can't tell the difference between facts and   
   > imagination because nothing has real meaning to you.   
   >   
   > Was this insanity the reason you didn't go to jail for the kiddie porn?   
      
   Almost has to be?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)