XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 12/18/25 9:54 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 12/18/25 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 12/18/25 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 12/18/2025 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/18/25 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/18/2025 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/18/25 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> 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)   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So, you don't know what an algorithm is.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Seems normal for you,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> But the answer CAN be derived from the input, just not in finte time.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It is very difficult to see that this is Counter-factual.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So, UTMS don't exist?   
   >>>   
   >>> You are on the right track.   
   >>> You need much more details.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> In other words, you don't know how to support your claim, because you   
   >> are just lying.   
   >>   
   >> All you are doing is proving you are a liar and buring your reputaiton   
   >> under that pile of lies proving that you are just an ignorant   
   >> pathological liar.   
   >   
   > fucking toxic-ass chief engineer u r   
   >   
   >>   
   >> So, do you believe that UTMs exist?   
   >>   
   >> If so, then your claim that the halting property is invalid is just a   
   >> lie.   
      
   actually his claim is that computing the halting property is an invalid   
   expectation (which kind of actually agrees with ur position, just with   
   different words). and is a bit retarded in it's own sense, but the fact   
   u don't know that after engaging with him for what? decades ...?   
      
   toxic ass mf   
      
   >>   
   >> If you don't, then you admit that the basis of your claimed decider is   
   >> just a lie, as it needs UTMs to exist to try to justify that it can   
   >> determine the answer.   
   >>   
   >> Sorry, you are just killing your own theory.   
   >>   
   >> Your problem is you killed your ability to reason by making yourself   
   >> ignorant of the field, and then you believed your own lies.   
   >>   
   >> Your have made yourself effectively brain dead.   
      
   --   
   a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve   
   basic semantic proofs like halting analysis   
      
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
      
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)