XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/24/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/24/25 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/24/2025 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/24/25 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   >>>> *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   >>>> *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   >>>> *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   >>>> *It does define the scope of what deciders can do*   
   >>>   
   >>> Ok, but not what they can be asked to do.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> When-so-ever whatever they are asked to do is outside   
   >> the scope of what they can do the requirement itself   
   >> is incorrect.   
   >>   
   >   
   > And where do you get that from?   
   >   
   > Your own STUPIDITY.   
   >   
      
   *This defines the scope of computation*   
   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.   
      
   *This is semantically entailed from this definition*   
      
   Any requirement that requires more than the above   
   definition can provide is a requirement that is outside   
   of the scope of computation.   
      
   When you have no idea what the term "semantically   
   entailed" means or how it works you cannot understand.   
      
      
   --   
   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)