XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/21/2025 6:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/21/25 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/21/2025 6:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/21/25 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> 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?   
   >>>   
   >>> As I have said, a Decider built on a RASP machine has no strings at   
   >>> all, just a list of Numbers.   
   >>>   
   >>> And even if you have a string based decider, just calling them   
   >>> "Transformation Rules" leaves too much ambiquity, as we can verbally   
   >>> describe rules that can not actually be computed, as you don't limit   
   >>> the "atoms" that make up your transformations.   
   >>>   
   >>> This, it excludes cases that should be allowed, and allows things   
   >>> that should be exluded, and thus is a perfectly wrong definition.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I need the simplest possible essence or I will   
   >> never be understood.   
   >   
   > You need to start for FACTS or you will never be correct.   
   >   
   > It seems you logic says Truth is optional.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   >> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Nope. Starting with your error, and you DOOM your logic.   
   >   
      
   What is the error with that one?   
      
   --   
   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)