XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/22/2025 2:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/22/25 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Really?   
   >   
   > What did I miss, that isn't you eqivocating on the meaning of your words.   
   >   
   > Of course, your problem is your words no longer have any meaning as you   
   > have admitted you reserve the right to change meanings when you want to.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > So?   
   >   
      
   H is only accountable for applying finite string   
   transformation rules to its input finite string.   
      
   H is not accountable for baking a birthday cake.   
   H is not accountable for not using psychic powers.   
      
   H is only accountable for applying finite string   
   transformation rules to its input finite string.   
   Anything else is outside the scope of computation.   
      
   --   
   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)