XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/20/2025 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/20/25 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/20/2025 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/20/25 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> WRONG, and prove your stupidity.   
   >>>   
   >>> Remember you definition of a "Computable Function"?   
   >>>   
   >>> If the Turing Machine doesn't compute the specified function, it   
   >>> failed to do its duty.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Prior to my elaboration this was hidden in   
   >> a slightly incorrect basic frame-of-reference.   
   >   
   > No it isn/t   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Yet with my elaboration it becomes clear that   
   >> when the function is not computable from the input   
   >> then it is the requirement that is wrong.   
   >>   
   >   
   > No it isn't. That is just your error.   
   >   
   > To be a ligitimate problem, the mapping needs to be a total mapping,   
   > where all input values generate a specific output value.   
   >   
   > The mapping being non-computable doesn't make it invalid, it just make   
   > it so no such machine can exist.   
   >   
   >   
   >> We when require sum(3,4) to produce the sum of 5 + 6   
   >> it is the requirement that is wrong.   
   >   
   > But that is you just being stupid.   
   >   
   > H(P) asks what P does. A Fully rational question.   
   >   
      
   Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?   
   E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications   
   WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.   
   See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf   
      
   >>   
   >> With the halting problem the issue it is so   
   >> enormously more subtle that it took one guys   
   >> focus for 22 years.   
   >   
   > No, you wasted 22 years because you made yourself intentionally ignornat.   
   >   
      
   Three different LLMs have verified the my reasoning   
   is correctly semantically entailed from first principles   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)