XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/21/2025 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/21/25 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/20/2025 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/20/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/20/2025 5:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/20/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/20/2025 7:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/20/25 8:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 19/12/2025 23:01, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Deciders: Transform finite strings by finite string   
   >>>>>>>>> transformation rules into {Accept, Reject}.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I continue to Reject your asymmetric and functionally-loaded   
   >>>>>>>> labels for   
   >>>>>>>> the classes.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That is just one of the few accurate quotations Olcott makes.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It was not a quotation. I had to piece that together   
   >>>>>> myself from numerous sources. It took me 22 years to   
   >>>>>> do this.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Gee, that should be something you could have found in just a few   
   >>>>> minutes of searching. It is basic material in Computation Theory in   
   >>>>> the introductory material on Deciders.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> They never ever phrase it exactly that way.   
   >>>> Look for yourself.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Really? With a very quick search I get to:   
   >>>   
   >>> https://sites.radford.edu/~nokie/classes/420/Chap3-Langs.html   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> None say: "finite string transformation rules"   
   >> None say: "finite string transformation rules"   
   >> None say: "finite string transformation rules"   
   >> None say: "finite string transformation rules"   
   >>   
   >   
   > Rigth, because that is the part you have wrong.   
   >   
   > Deciders don't need to be based on "Finite String Transformation Rules".   
   >   
      
   Try to prove this. What counter-example do you have?   
      
   > So, don't expect that to come up.   
   >   
   > Where did YOU get that as your basis?   
   >   
   > I can guess, out of your ass, as that is the smartest part of you.   
      
   It turns out that all   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   for the entire body of knowledge   
   is verified by "finite string transformation rules"   
      
   --   
   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)