XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/21/2025 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/21/25 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/21/2025 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/21/25 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/21/2025 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/21/25 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/21/2025 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/21/25 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> 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?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That they are based on some arbitrary finite string   
   >>>>>>> transformation rules. There are very specific requirements to the   
   >>>>>>> transformations that they can do.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I never said arbitrary. I am only wrong   
   >>>>>> if they are sometimes not based on any   
   >>>>>> finite string transformation rules at all.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You didn't restrict it, so you left it arbitary.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Oh I see what you mean.   
   >>>> I never said anything about their intended purpose.   
   >>>> This was intentional.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If any intended purpose cannot be achieved by   
   >>>> applying finite string transformations to input   
   >>>> finite strings then the intended purpose is   
   >>>> outside of the scope of computation.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This is the entire essence of my 22 years of work   
   >>>> on the halting problem.   
   >>>   
   >>> Which is just a factual error because you don't understand what the   
   >>> terms mean.   
   >>>   
   >>> They can only DO what can be done by their computations restrictions.   
   >>>   
   >>> But the requirements are not limited by their ability, and it is   
   >>> acknowledge that we can make requirements that can not be meet.   
   >>>   
   >>> In fact, part of the goal of the field is to try to classify which   
   >>> types of problems CAN be solved, and which can not.   
   >>>   
   >>> Not understanding the purpose of the field means you are making   
   >>> fundamentally wrong assumptions.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I spent 22 years on the notion of undecidability.   
   >>   
   >> Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   >> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>   
   >> What-so-ever result that cannot be derived by   
   >> applying finite string transformation rules to   
   >> input finite strings  outside the scope of   
   >> computation.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Which, since there *IS* a procedure to get the result from the string   
   > (the real UTM),   
   No that is simply you not paying 100% complete   
   attention to the exact meaning of every single word.   
      
   When LLMs make this same mistake and I tell them they   
   did not pay close enough attention they immediately   
   correct themselves.   
      
      
      
   --   
   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)