[continued from previous message]   
      
   The fact you can't SHOW it, shows that it likely isn't there.   
      
   Your problem is you have PROVEN that you don't understand the material,   
   and thus any incoherence you think you see is almost certainly an error   
   on your part.   
      
   If you want to try to convince people you are right, you need to show   
   actual proof of your claims, and root that proof in the actual   
   definitions of the system, something you have shown you don't actually know.   
      
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > *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.   
      
   And, it seems, you don't actually understand what that means.   
      
   >   
   > This is the part that you are having great difficulty   
   > understanding.   
      
   No, you confuse ability with requirements.   
      
   There is nothing wrong with requirements that turn out to not be   
   meetable, as long as they are well defined.   
      
   This is like you confuse Truth with Knowledge and your brain blows up   
   when you need to confront their difference.   
      
   >   
   >>  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)