[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   
      
   But only finitely, for this H, then it halts.   
      
   H just gave up before it saw the full behavior, becasue that is what   
   this H does.   
      
   > P simulated by H1 halts   
      
   Because that is what it does   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   The problem is you don't understand that there are.   
      
   That H doesn't do it, doesn't put it outside the scope.   
      
   You are just stuck in your ignorant subjective world that doesn't   
   understand the meaning of truth.   
      
   Meaning is not limited to what the decider does.   
      
   In fact, Computation (themselves) never define a meaning at all, since   
   they are purely syntactic operations.   
      
   Meaning is establshed by something outside the computation itself, that   
   knows the meaning assigned to the input and output string.   
      
      
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Nope. THey may say they do, but it has been proved otherwise.   
      
   The AI machines will continue to remember your personal biases so they   
   can agreee with you.   
      
   This has been demonstrated by two different people, who have talked with   
   AI from different background, but putting in the same prompt, and   
   getting opposite ansswers, answers that correspond to their own   
   backgrounds as determined by their previous questions.   
      
   Sorry, but since AI is a proven liar. its responces are not "proof" of   
   anything except your own ignorance of what you say.   
      
   And, as pointed out, your prompts include your bias, as you exclude the   
   case you don't want to be revealed, as you start with the assumption   
   that there is an H that gives the right answer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)