XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/23/2025 11:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/23/25 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/23/2025 10:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/23/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/23/2025 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> A Turing-machine decider is a Turing machine D that   
   >>>>> computes a total function D : Σ∗ → {Accept,Reject},   
   >>>>> where Σ∗ is the set of all finite strings over the   
   >>>>> input alphabet. That is:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ∗,   
   >>>>> D halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 2. Decision basis: Each input string is evaluated   
   >>>>> according to one of two types of properties:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    (a) Syntactic property: a property of the input   
   >>>>>    string itself, such as containing a particular   
   >>>>>    substring or satisfying a structural pattern.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    (b) Semantic property: a property of the sequence of   
   >>>>>    computational steps explicitly encoded by the input   
   >>>>>    string, i.e., the behavior that the input itself   
   >>>>>    specifies when interpreted as a machine description.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset   
   >>>> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions   
   >>>> a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly   
   >>>> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the   
   >>>> input itself specifies.   
   >>>   
   >>> Right, so why does that not apply to the encoding you gave it to   
   >>> describe P?   
   >>>   
   >>> If that input DOESN't encode the needed steps, you didn't give it the   
   >>> right encoding.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The common meaning of the term "describe" does   
   >> not mean specifies an exactly sequence of steps.   
   >   
   > But the term-of-art does.   
   >   
      
   Because is does not directly say that it specifies   
   an exact sequence of steps: experts in the field   
   of the theory of computation totally miss the very   
   subtle nuance THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.   
      
   > I guess you don't understand how word meaning works.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> (b) Semantic property: This only applies to the subset   
   >> of finite strings that are valid machine descriptions   
   >> a property of the sequence of computational steps explicitly   
   >> encoded by the input string, i.e., the behavior that the   
   >> input itself specifies.   
   >>   
   >> Every tiny nuance of meaning of every single word   
   >> is required.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Right, which EXPLICITLY says that the behavior of the machine encoded   
   > (which is another term for describing) is a valid criteria that a   
   > decider must be able to be asked.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is showing your utter stupidity.   
   >   
   >   
      
   It defines P simulated by H as the correct answer.   
      
   >   
   > And, from your signature:   
   >   
   > 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
   
   >   
   > If this *IS* your goal, then you need to start a fully new system of   
   > logic to work in (as you said), which means you need to start actually   
   > building at the foundation.   
   >   
   > You have made the mistake of building on a different foundatation that   
   > doesn't support your ideas.   
   >   
   > And, after you have made your new foundation, you need to show why it is   
   > useful, and what it can do that the existing ones can't.   
   >   
   > It seems you don't even understand the basics of what a "foundation" is,   
   > so how can you make a new one?   
      
      
   --   
   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)