XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/15/2025 9:12 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   > On 15/12/2025 08:53, Mikko wrote:   
   >> On 15/12/2025 02:31, olcott wrote:   
   >>> Turing machine halt deciders compute the mapping   
   >>> from input finite strings to a halt status on the   
   >>> basis of the behavior that these finite strings   
   >>> inputs actually specify.   
   >>   
   >> There are no halt deciders so they don't actually do anything.   
   >>   
   >   
   > aha!   
   >   
   > "/Each/ Turing machine halt decider computes ..."   
   >   
   > other issues notwithstanding.   
   >   
   >   
      
   The notion of halt decider that requires a TM   
   to report on the behavior of another TM through   
   the proxy of a finite string machine description   
   is satisfiable when it is understood that   
      
   Turing machine halt deciders compute the mapping   
   from input finite strings to a halt status on the   
   basis of the behavior that these finite strings   
   inputs actually specify.   
      
   When an input finite string has been defined to   
   reference its own decider then the behavior of   
   this H/D pair may not be the same as an H1/D pair   
   where D is not defined to reference H1.   
      
      
   --   
   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)