[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> The decider outputs Accept if the corresponding property   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> holds for the input and Reject otherwise.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> So, it seems you can't point out where I aaid something   
   >>>>>>>>>>> wrong, just repeated the statement which I showed you what it   
   >>>>>>>>>>> means.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Maybe formal correctness is too overwhelming.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Yes, it seems to have overwhelmed you.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> You didn't respond to my explanation, so I guess you are just   
   >>>>>>>>> admitting that you removed my CORRECT description and agree to it.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> (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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   >>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>> {Accept, Reject} values   
   >>>>   
   >>>> P simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own   
   >>>> final halt state Dumbo.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Which isn't the question being asked, showing your stupidity.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It never has been my stupidity my IQ is very high.   
   >> It has always your inability to pay 100% complete   
   >> attention to every subtle nuance of meaning of every   
   >> single word.   
   >   
   > No, your IQ is minisule,   
      
   By objective measures, a Mensa IQ test I am   
   in the top 3%. Where are you by these same   
   objective measures? I would say that you are   
   at least in the top 20%, maybe much higher.   
      
   > as you deceive yourself into thinking you   
   > "know" things, when they have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo   
   > actual logic for the fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to   
   > ignore reality.   
   >   
      
   It is all a matter of your lack of ability to   
   pay complete attention. You have never been   
   able to show the tiniest actual mistake in   
   anything that I have ever said and prove that   
   it is an actual mistake with correct reasoning.   
      
   The best that you have every done is show that   
   what I am saying does not conform to the   
   convention view.   
      
   > That is the height of stupidity.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.   
   >> I have the opposite hyper focus super power.   
   >   
   > And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.   
   >   
      
   Your "facts" are the mere dogma of the conventional   
   view. Expressions of language that are impossibly false   
   within a definition are derived by applying correct   
   semantic entailment to this definition.   
      
   The is what I have just achieved in the last two weeks.   
      
   You have not even shows that you know what   
   "semantic entailment" is. If you do not   
   even know what it is then you cannot know   
   the details of how it works.   
      
   >>   
   >> I would estimate (possibly incorrectly) The ADD   
   >> could be circumvented in isolated cases by reading   
   >> the same words over-and-over many times.   
   >>   
   >> My first principles are not yet completely perfected.   
   >>   
   >   
   > But, until you decide that you are going to be makeing a brand new   
   > system, and accept that your system says nothing about the existing   
   > systems, you don't get to make a "first principle"   
   >   
      
   First principles derived from standard definitions   
   do not define a new system. They do point out errors   
   of incoherence in the existing system. The only thing   
   that seems to be incorrect in the theory of computation   
   is the notion of undecidability.   
      
   > Your ignorance is so great, you don't seem to understand this fact.   
   >   
   > Your H may be a partial decider, but it can't be a Halt Decider, as that   
   > modifier to the name adds the reqirement that the transformation rules   
   > it uses must produce the same mapping as the already defined "Halting   
   > Function", and you aren't allowed to redefine it.   
   >   
   > Since your P halts, and you even admit that, H(P) returning 0 is just   
   > incorrect, and no amount of attempts to justify it make the wrong answer   
   > right, it just shows you don't understand that you are wrong.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is proving that you self-imposed ignorance has turned   
   > you into a pathological lying idiot that is too stupid to see his own   
   > errors.   
      
      
   --   
   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)