[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> (1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   >>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (2) Any required value that cannot be derived by applying   
   >>>> finite string transformation rules to finite string inputs   
   >>>> is outside of the scope of computation.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> And since the halting behavior of the encoded P was derived by such a   
   >>> transformation, it was correct and you ADMIT you have LIED.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Transform finite string   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >>   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >>   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >> inputs   
   >>   
   >> by finite string transformation rules into   
   >> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >   
   > Right, which I showed, but apparently due to your ignorance, you can't   
   > understand.   
   >   
      
   P simulated by H derives recursive simulation   
   P simulated by H1 halts   
      
   That there are no finite string transformations   
   from the input to H(P) to the behavior of H1(P)   
   means that the behavior of H1(P) is outside the   
   scope of computation for H.   
      
   Clause AI and ChatGPT always start from scratch   
   with no knowledge of prior conversations. They   
   have agreed with me on this a dozen times each   
   only because they can apply the laser focused   
   attention that I can apply.   
      
      
   --   
   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)