XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/20/2025 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/20/25 9:54 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/20/2025 8:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/20/25 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/20/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> On 20/12/2025 03:27, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite   
   >>>>>> string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCDTF.pdf   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> As there are no halt deciders they don't work at all.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The above defines the generic notion of decider.   
   >>>> There are deciders.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> But not Halt Deciders.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> When a halt decider is defined to exceed what   
   >> generic deciders can do then this definition   
   >> is incorrect.   
   >   
   > But it isn't. A Halt Decider needs to compute a result from the finite   
   > string.   
   >   
      
   Exactly.   
      
   Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite string   
   transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
      
   > But, if the thing it needs to compute isn't computable, it can't exist.   
   >   
      
   When it is computable from the finite string yet   
   this result disagrees with the requirement then   
   the requirement is wrong.   
      
      
   --   
   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)