XPost: sci.math, comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/21/2025 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/21/25 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/21/2025 6:28 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>> Le 22/12/2025 à 01:00, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>> On 12/21/2025 5:35 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>>>> Le 22/12/2025 à 00:19, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> When we compute the mapping from the input to H(D,D) this   
   >>>>>>> must apply a set of finite string transformation rules   
   >>>>>>> (specified by the semantics of the x86 language) to this input.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The above is my first use applying this term to a halt decider.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> My first documented use of the term   
   >>>>>> "finite string transformation rules"   
   >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/TFXhleKnHmY/m/lqhDVnvUBgAJ   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> *This is the basis for my unique definition of a generic decider*   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   >>>>>> string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So you stated a triviality that does not change a iota to the fact   
   >>>>> that the rest of you claims are wrong.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So what?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Deciders: Transform finite string inputs by finite   
   >>>> string transformation rules into {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The rest of my claims can be deduced from the above   
   >>>> first principle and any standard definition of the   
   >>>> halting problem.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It took me 21.5 years to translate my intuitions into   
   >>>> this definitional basis. They weren't worth much as   
   >>>> mere intuitions.   
   >>>   
   >>> It took you 21.5 years to state a pointless definition that in no way   
   >>> support your other silly claims?   
   >>> Congrats !   
   >>>   
   >> Do you understand that whatever conclusion   
   >> is derived through correct semantic entailment   
   >> from definitions is a necessary consequence of   
   >> these definitions?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > And when you start with wrong definitions, you can't say anything about   
   > the results.   
   >   
      
   Still   
   a necessary consequence of these definitions.   
      
   > To have right definitions, you need to have studied the basics, and if   
   > you have, you could refer to them.   
   >   
   > Since you admitted your "logic" is based on not having looked at the   
   > basics, but trying to "deduce" the first-principle from ZERO-Principles,   
   > all you have done is admitted you don't actually know what you are   
   > talking about.   
      
   Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   {Accept, Reject} values.   
      
   and the standard definition of the halting problem   
   are the only definitional basis that I need.   
      
   --   
   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)