XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/17/2025 10:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/17/25 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/17/2025 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/16/25 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> Turing Machines only transform finite string inputs into values.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Right, and there correctness is based on the value they compute   
   >>> matching the answer to the question they are supposed to be answering.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> If the answer to the question is not encoded in the   
   >> input then this is not an undecidable decision problem   
   >> instance it is an incorrect question.   
   >>   
   >> It must be actually encoded in the input such   
   >> that it can be decoded from the input otherwise   
   >> the question is incorrect.   
   >>   
   >>> So, for a supposed Halt Decider, that is does the machine that finite   
   >>> string represents halt when it is run.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > How many question include the answer in the question?   
   >   
      
   With decision problem if the answer cannot be computed   
   from the input then the question is incorrect.   
      
   I have worked on undecidability for 28 years and have   
   proven to several LLM systems that my reframing of   
   decision problems is correct.   
      
   Because I have now done this from first principles   
   directly derived from standard definitions my reasoning   
   is finally provably sound.   
      
   > But note, the the correct answer for H(D) is determinable strictly from   
   > the encoded finite string given to H, as UTM(D),   
      
   Not when pathological self-reference is involved.   
   when pathological self-reference *IS NOT* involved   
   then H.UTM(P) derives identical behavior to UTM(P).   
      
   When pathological self-reference *IS* involved then   
   the behavior of H.UTM(P) derives different behavior   
   than UTM(P). This has been proved thousands of times.   
      
   The last key piece is how and why one of them overrules   
   and supersedes the other. This is correctly analyzed   
   from first principles derived from standard definitions.   
      
   > using that exact same   
   > string, will exhibit the behavior that H is supposed to answer about.   
   >   
   > Thus, the information *IS* there, it is just that it isn't computable.   
   >   
   > Of course, if you don't believe in UTMs as being valid, you are just   
   > admitting your whole basis of talking about a UTM based Halt Decider is   
   > invalid.   
   >   
   > Of course, the other part of the problem is you don't realize that you   
   > broke the UTM property of the machine you based you decider on, so you   
   > can't use H's own simulation anymore.   
   >   
   > You just lie that you can use wrong answers and just pretend they must   
   > be right.   
      
      
   --   
   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)