XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/22/2025 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/21/25 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)