XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/15/2025 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/14/25 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/14/2025 7:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/14/25 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/14/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/14/25 7:31 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> Whenever any textbook says that a halt decider   
   >>>>>> must compute halting for machine M on input w   
   >>>>>> is it wrong. At best it only computes the halting   
   >>>>>> of M/w through the proxy of finite strings ⟨M⟩/w.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Nope, you are just wrong because you are too stupid to understand   
   >>>>> representations.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You already agreed to this, you didn't bother   
   >>>> to pay close enough attention to the paraphrase   
   >>>> of what you already agreed to.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Halt deciders report on the behavior of   
   >>>> Turing machines only through the proxy   
   >>>> of finite string machine descriptions.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Whenever textbooks do not say it exactly that   
   >>>> way they are being less than completely accurate.   
   >>>   
   >>> Nope, and thus you show you don't understand how language works.   
   >>>   
   >>> The fact that the text you read weren't explicit enough   
   >>   
   >> Proves that they are not as precise as they could be.   
   >> That lack of precision leads to universal misconception.   
   >   
   > Nope, only to misconception by those who refuse to do the work to learn   
   > the basics.   
   >   
      
   DD is defined to have behavior that is interdependent   
   on HHH. Everyone assumes this interdependency away.   
      
   When DD is simulated by HHH as if HHH was a C interpreter   
   and HHH takes its argument as referring to the finite string   
   of the text of DD then DD never reaches its own "return"   
   statement final halt state when simulated by HHH according   
   to the semantics of C.   
      
   > Your ignorance is not the fault of the subject, but your decision that   
   > the field was just "wrong" so you refused to learn its basics.   
   >   
   > You made yourself into the ignorant pathological liar.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>  for you just shows that likely you don't have the needed background   
   >>> for them, and that fact was presumed already known by the student.   
   >>>   
   >>> Just like a calculus book won't explicitly warn you that division by   
   >>> 0 is just undefined, or that multiplication by 1 is a no operation.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Turing machine deciders compute the mapping from   
   >>>>>> input finite strings to an accept or reject value   
   >>>>>> by some criterion measure.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Right, and for a Halt Decider, that criteria is the behavior of the   
   >>>>> machine the input string represents.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is a key semantic difference between   
   >>>> finite string x has a syntactic property   
   >>>> and finite string x specifies a semantic property   
   >>>   
   >>> yes, and that is part of the problem. Finite machine deciders can   
   >>> only compute syntactic operations.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Then Rice's theorem is tossed out the window?   
   >>   
   >> In computability theory, Rice's theorem states   
   >> that all non-trivial semantic properties of   
   >> programs are undecidable. A semantic property   
   >> is one about the program's behavior   
   >   
   > Nope, it is only about PROGRAMS, and he shows that for semantic   
   > properties of those, all are undeciable, as the field of programs is   
   > powerful enough to build undecidability everywhere.   
   >   
   > Note, my example of a decidable semantic property was NOT about a   
   > program, but about a proof.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem   
   >>   
   >>> Questions can be about semantics.   
   >>>   
   >>> To make a decider, you need to find the algorithmic bridge between   
   >>> the two of them.   
   >>>   
   >>> For instance, Proof VERIFICATION, which is a semantic operation, can   
   >>> be reduced to syntactic steps, and thus we can build a Machine to see   
   >>> if a given input it a proper proof, and said machine can work for all   
   >>> input string.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Here is an insight that LLM Kimi suggested entirely   
   >> on the basis of the text of my first principles.   
   >>   
   >> The Universal TM's Illusion: The UTM appears   
   >> to "simulate another machine," but it's really just   
   >> interpreting a string as a lookup table for state   
   >> transitions. The simulation is pure string rewriting.   
   >   
   > Which since that IS what Turing Machines do, is correct, but doesn't   
   > make your point.   
   >   
   > Turing Macines are just state machines that do syntactic operations on a   
   > string. That is all that ANY computation is.   
   >   
   > That is why they are deterministic, and not volitional, something you   
   > don't seem to understand.   
   >   
   > Computations can only answer questions that are determinable based on   
   > syntactic operations. In restricted enough grammars, that can include   
   > some questions that seem to be semantic.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> But, what cant' be done is to write a machine that takes a   
   >>> proposition and tells you if it is provable, as that can not be   
   >>> converted into a syntactic operation.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)