XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/14/2025 6:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/14/25 7:39 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/14/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/14/25 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/14/2025 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/14/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/14/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 13/12/2025 23:32, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> All of the textbooks require halt deciders to   
   >>>>>>>> report on the behavior of machine M on input w.   
   >>>>>>>> This may be easy to understand yet not precisely   
   >>>>>>>> accurate.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That is precisely accurate. The problem is exactly what the problem   
   >>>>>>> statement says. You may define your problem differently but then   
   >>>>>>> you just have another problem. The halting problem still is what   
   >>>>>>> it was.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> All the textbooks simply ignore that no Turing   
   >>>>>> machine can possibly compute the mapping from   
   >>>>>> the behavior from another actual Turing machine.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Sure it can, from the representation of it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Just like it can add two numbers by using representatins.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> They can only compute the mapping from a finite   
   >>>>>> string input that is a mere proxy for this behavior.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And the proxy represents that same behavior, so it must get the   
   >>>>> same result.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> As I have conclusively proved many thousands of   
   >>>> times that the behavior of DD AS AN ACTUAL INPUT   
   >>>> to HHH does SPECIFY non-halting behavior.   
   >>>   
   >>> No you haven't,   
   >> I say that I have proven this   
   >> DD AS AN INPUT TO HHH(DD)   
   >   
   > Right, which has a specific meaning based on the representation   
   > definition that HHH uses, and that meaning applies everywhere that   
   > representation is used.   
   >   
   > Does the meaning of an objective statement change based on who you say   
   > it to?   
   >   
   >>   
   >> and your rebuttal is ALWAYS I am wrong because   
   >> DD NOT AS AN INPUT TO HHH(DD)   
   >> has different behavior.   
   >   
   > But it is the same DD, in the same context.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> It is like you have no idea that   
   >> [NOT TRUE] and [TRUE] are not exactly the same thing   
   >>   
   >   
   > But they aren't the same string, so it is just a bad example.   
   >   
      
   DD as an input to HHH has different   
   behavior than DD as an input to HHH1.   
      
   Halt deciders are only required to map the   
   behavior that their actual input actually   
   specifies to a halt status.   
      
   > "Apples are normally Red", has that meaning in all spots using the same   
   > vocabulary and grammar.   
   >   
   > Or, do you claim there is no UTM that uses the same representation as   
   > HHH to use to test it, even though it was built based on one.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)