XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/22/2025 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/22/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/22/2025 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/22/25 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> You are getting closer, good job !   
   >>>>>> Anything outside of what they CAN do   
   >>>>>> is outside the scope of computation.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Nope.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That just shows you don't understand the field.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Since the problem is to determine what IS computable, limiting what   
   >>>>> you can ask to just computable things is nonsense.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Only those things that can be derived by applying   
   >>>> finite string transformations to inputs are computable.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> So?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Requiring H(P) to report on the basis of UTM(P) is not   
   >> derivable by applying finite string transformations to   
   >> the input to H(P).   
   >>   
   >   
   > Sure it is. Why isn't UTM(P) not a valid finite string transformation?   
   >   
      
   You are not precise enough in your use of the exact   
   words that I precisely specified.   
      
   > You can't limit the transformations to what are actually IN H, since   
   > that just breaks things as then every machine is correct, since it   
   > computed the transform that it defined.   
   >   
      
   There does not exist any H(P) such that P calls   
   H(P) and has the same behavior as H1(P) where   
   P does not call H1.   
      
   Both H(P) and H1(P) do apply the best possible   
   finite string transformation rules to their inputs   
   and derive different results because there is   
   a pathological relationship between H and P.   
      
   > Your problem is you can't think, as you don't know the basics to work   
   > with, because you CHOSE to be IGNORNT and thus made yourself STUPID.   
      
   I have always been correct about this and no one   
   person could ever show otherwise because their   
   own basis of correct was incorrect: mere consensus   
   of fallible human opinion.   
   --   
   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)