XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/18/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/18/25 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/18/2025 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/18/25 1:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Says who?   
   >>>   
   >>> Since the whole purpose of Computation Theory is to determine what   
   >>> questions are computable, that is just nonsense/   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> We cannot predict who the next president of   
   >> the United States will be on the sole basis   
   >> of the square-root of two.   
   >>   
   >   
   > So? That isn't a question that even comes up in the theory.   
   >   
   >> Likewise every computation must have a sufficient   
   >> basis.   
   >   
   > No, every computation has an algorithm that it will blindly and   
   > mechanically follow.   
   >   
      
   That seems accurate.   
      
   WhoIsNextPresidentOfUSA(√2)   
   (entirely on the basis of the square root of two)   
      
   The tiny little detail that no one noticed for   
   90 years is that in those cases where the required   
   output cannot be derived from the actual input it   
   is the requirement itself that is incorrect.   
      
   No amount of devotion to dogma can possibly change this.   
   Undecidability proves that the notion of truth itself is   
   (not coherently connected together) AKA broken.   
      
   > The DESIGNER of the algorithm needs to have a good basis if the   
   > computation is to get the right answer.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Turing machines ONLY transform inputs into values   
   >> or get stuck in loops.   
   >>   
   >   
   > In other words, you are just showing your stupidity.   
   >   
   > You just don't understand even the basic categories of what you talk about.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)