[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> But since yours don't, or at least your interpretations of them don't,   
   >> the are not valid.   
   >>   
   >   
   > (1) Turing machine deciders: Transform finite string   
   > inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   > {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >   
   > Here is the same thing more formally and less clearly.   
   >   
   > Definition: Turing-Machine Decider D   
   >   
   > A Turing-machine decider D is a Turing machine that computes   
   > a total function D : Σ* → {Accept, Reject}. That is:   
   >   
   > 1. Totality: For every finite string input w ∈ Σ*, D   
   > halts and outputs either Accept or Reject.   
      
      
   >   
   >> For instance, Halting is an objective measure, and thus NOT based on   
   >> the deciders own action.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Not according to the above two definitions.   
      
   But the above doesn't define what an XXX Decider is. Note, it talks   
   NOTHING about what makes a given decider "correct" (a word you don't   
   seem to understand)   
      
   Yes, your H is a decider (if you fix it to always answer), but it isn't   
   a HALT decider though, as its computed results do not match th Halting   
   function, which IS a valid function to ask about per the definition of a   
   Semantic Property.   
      
   You are just showing your ignorance of the langague.   
      
   I guess you think you can submit your Persan Cat into the Westminister   
   Dog Show as that show is for trained animals.   
      
   >   
   >> You have not actually pointed out an "incoherence" in the system, as   
   >> every claimed incoherence comes AFTER you have added a non-sense rule   
   >> to the system.   
   >>   
   >> This is because you just don't know what yo are talking about.   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)