XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/20/2025 5:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/20/25 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/20/2025 4:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/20/25 5:05 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/20/2025 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/20/25 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/20/2025 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/20/25 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/20/2025 2:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/20/25 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/2025 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/25 2:22 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 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}.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> So, you are just admitting you are stupid, as you can't keep   
   >>>>>>>>>>> the terms straight because you mind is to crooked.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the finite string that represents this   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Program P, built on your defined program H is computable, as   
   >>>>>>>>>>> shown by the fact that UTM(P) produces the required result of   
   >>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of running this program P.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I was not as clear as possible:   
   >>>>>>>>>> Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   >>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformation rules   
   >>>>>>>>>> that H can apply to its input P that derive the   
   >>>>>>>>>> behavior of UTM(P).   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> That isn't a valid statement,   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Prove that it isn't a valid statement by showing   
   >>>>>>>> the finite string transformations that HHH can   
   >>>>>>>> apply to DD to derive the same behavior as DD   
   >>>>>>>> simulated by HHH1.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Since HHH only does one specific finite string transformation,   
   >>>>>>> that can't be the definition of what determines the answer.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Try and figure out how HHH can apply better finite string   
   >>>>>> transformation rules to *ITS ACTUAL INPUT* than DD simulated   
   >>>>>> by HHH. DO this so that it derives the same behavior as   
   >>>>>> DD simulated by HHH1.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Why does it need to?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   >>>> string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> They are not accountable for anything else.   
   >>>> Both HHH(DD) and HHH1(DD) do this correctly.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Sure they are. They just need to use their finite string   
   >>> transformation to get to the required answer.   
   >>>   
   >>> After all, an XXX Decider needs to compute the XXX function of their   
   >>> input.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Only to the extent that there exists some finite   
   >> string transformation rules from its input that   
   >> derive the required result otherwise it turns out   
   >> that the requirements themselves are incorrect.   
   >   
   > Nope, to be an XXX Decider, you need to compute the XXX function.   
   >   
      
   *Counter-factual on this basis*   
   (It did take me 22 years to derive that basis)   
      
   Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
   They are not accountable for anything else.   
      
      
   --   
   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)